Kristen Herwitz Blogher Publishing Network. Blogher Blogs, Blogher Copyright Issues. Kristen Herwitz, Elisa Camahort, Lisa Stone, Jory Des Jardins, Blogher.

Kristen Herwitz Blogher Publishing Network Beef with Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox

Kristen Herwitz, Blogpaws, Blogher Advertisers, Blogher Publishing Network,Online's Women's Network, BlogPaws Publishing Networks, Blogher Editor, Elisa Camahort, Lisa Stone, Jory Des Jardins, Blogher Framing.  Got a Tip on Kristen Herwitz, Blogher or anything on this post?

Email your Kristen Herwitz Blogher Publishing Network., tip to Crystal@CrystalCox.com

A bit about Blogher, Kristen Herwitz, Copyright Laws, Website and Blog Framing, Blogher Making Money from the product of others work, their entire sites and network.  And yet covet their own material as if it is worth more then the thousands of pages of content they use to put their ads on that is Other People's life work.

Blogher Says about Bloghher Advertising "Partner With the Most Influential, Social and Info-Savvy Women Online."  I say not so much social, info-savvy but content stealing and using others writing for free on their blogs to create Blogher content for them to post google ads and other advertisers, making money over and over from YOUR Content. Even if Blogher pays you once for an article, Blogher makes money from that Blogher Content over and over.

You are better off to post your content on your blog instead of Blogher, and set up your own Google Adsense or commission junction site, or other affiliates. And it is best for you to encourage others to re-post your content and give you a link back. Blogher does not want your content shared on other blogs, this is greed based and not about getting attention to HUGE issues such as Human Trafficing.

Blogher claims to have an ad network of 3,000 bloggers, yet do they pay them all or get them to write for free, and also frame the sites of others? And by this I mean Blogher frames the sites of others who are in the news, trending such as me Crystal Cox Blogger, so they can redirect traffic that my blog may get and get that traffic to their site. Blogher also uses my name to get traffic in writing stories about me because I am trending online, and then had a hissy fit and threatens legal action if I repost one of their post, though they illegally "Frame" My entire blog within their pages.

Blogher Editors, nor Blogher Legal Counsel asked my permission to "Frame" My site yet they did it anyway.

Blogger Counsel Kristen Herwitz claims that its standard of practice somehow for Blogher to frame other people's sites thing is that is stealing and copyright infringement BIGTIME.  Blogher now has framed hundreds of my blogs from CrystalCox.com - and every where that is linked from that site.  Blogher gets ad dollars and traffic to their site from using my site framed.  And when Blogher writes about you and links to your site they frame it.  I re-post a human trafficking story to support Blogher and to get traffic to their site and link to them and they cry copyright infringement, when they have used my name to post stories as I was "trending" and they illegally use thousands of my posts as content to get them webs traffic and ad dollars.

Even my YouTube Videos, my YouTube Channels, Hundreds of my Blogs accessed via CrystalCox.com are now ad revenue for Blogher.com - that is not FAIR to me and yet they threatened me simply because I quoted a paragraph from their site and linked to them, ON a Human Trafficing STORY? WTF ?


The Video Below is How Blogher Uses "Framing" to get revenue for them without paying those
who create the "Content".


Does Kristen Herwitz of Blogher Publishing Network know the Laws? Or is Blogher the only one that "Revenue", "Rights" and web traffic pertains to.


Kristen Herwitz, Blogher Publishing Network.




A Bit About the "Framing" Issue


Kristen Herwitz, Legal Counsel for Blogher says  "BlogHer employs a very common framing mechanism"  well re-posting articles is also "Common" yet she threatens me, and Framing is not legal or ethical from my research on the topic. 

"Framing. Framing is the process of dividing a Web page into separate framed regions and displaying the contents of someone else's site within a frame at your site. Generally speaking, site owners don't like having their content framed at another site, particularly without permission. At least one court has considered framing to be copyright infringement."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/getting-permission-publish-ten-tips-29933.html

"If you set your website up with frames, and display an ad in one frame while someone else’s Website is being displayed in the other, the area gets very gray. You are effectively pocketing ad revenue for displaying the work of others. I would not want to be the one on the defendant side of one of these suits, because the resulting page may be considered a “Derivative Work.”
Source
http://www.theegglestongroup.com/writing/crlaw.php

"What about framing content from another Web site on my own site; that's permitted -- isn't it?
Framing is presumptively illegal. The owners of many Web sites don't want their content to be "framed" on another site for a number of reasons, including the fact that they sometimes have advertisers whose ads aren't visible when their content is framed somewhere else. When you "frame" someone else's site, you also give the impression, at least to the casual viewer, that the other site's content originated with you. Again, the best policy is to ask the proprietor of the other site for permission before framing his content on your page. While he might refuse permission, or place some conditions on your doing so, better to give credit where credit is due than to get a "cease and desist" letter and/or demand for monetary damages from his lawyer."

Source of Above Quote
http://www.csusa.org/face/softint/myths.htm#framing

What does WIPO say about "Framing"
"g) Some Internet practices may raise trademark issues, such as metatagging, linking & framing, and using trademarks in domain names (see below). You should be careful to check the law that applies to your business on this issue and to ensure that you have permission to show trademarks owned by other companies, if the law requires it."
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/business_website.htm

And what state laws do Blogher get to use to decide if framing is LEGAL for them?  If I am based out of Montana and they are Based out of California and they steal my entire blog content to direct traffic to them, without my permission, what state laws apply?

More links on the act of FRAMING to use My Work for Blogher.com to make ad dollars
I intend to Sue Blogher for Framing my Blog as in this CNN Lawsuit,

"Framing is the process of dividing a Web page into separate framed regions and displaying the contents of someone else's site within a frame at your site. Generally speaking, site owners don't like having their content framed at another site, particularly without permission. At least one court has considered framing to be a copyright infringement, and in another case, CNN sued a news website that framed CNN news content. Under the terms of a settlement agreement, the news website agreed to stop framing and instead use text-only links."
Source of above Quote
http://www.garage.com/resources/reference/internet_tentips.shtml

Blogher Frames Our Blogs without Blogher asking our Permission to make ad dollars, revenue from our content and they do it to a whole lot of you.

"Framing is dividing a webpage into sections that display the contents of someone else's website within the sections on your website. Avoid framing others' material without first getting their permission. Courts have started to rule that framing constitutes copyright infringement."
Source of Above Quote
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright-realworld/website-content-permission.html

"Incorporating copyrighted web content by usage of framing has led to contentious litigation. Frames can be used for web pages belonging to the original site, or to load pages from other sites into a customized arrangement of frames that provide a generalized interface without actually requiring the viewer to browse the linked site from that site's URLs and interfaces."
Source of above quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing

"Framing occurs when one Web site incorporates another site’s web pages into a browser window with the first site’s own content. The webite with the frame may post navigation tools, text, trademarks and/or advertising that the framed website is unable to control.

As more of the second site is incorporated into the first, the possibility that users may become confused over affiliation, endorsement or sponsorship becomes stronger. On the other hand, it may be that the marketplace understands frames for what they typically are–simply a way to feature another site which conveys no implication of affiliation or endorsement.

The unauthorized use of framing has been challenged under a variety of legal theories, including copyright and trademark infringement, unfair or deceptive trade practices, false designation of origin (passing off), false light and false advertising.

The Washington Post Co. v. Total News, Inc. et al., No. 97 Civ. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 1997). Various news organizations sued Total News for linking to plaintiffs’ websites and framing their content within the Total News home page. Plaintiffs alleged claims for misappropriation, federal trademark dilution, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, copyright infringement, and various state claims.

The case settled in early June 1997 based on defendant’s agreement to stop framing content from plaintiffs’ sites. See also Order, Washington Post v. Gator Corp., No. 02-909-A (E.D. Va. 2002) (granting temporary injunction preventing Gator from delivering pop-up ads to plaintiffs’ websites that allegedly altered the intended appearance of the websites, interfered with the Web site operators’ ability to sell their own ads, decreased the value of these ads on the sites and misled users. The suit was settled with the outcome sealed by the court). See http://news.com.com/2100-1023-983870.html.

Futuredontics Inc. v. Applied Anagramic Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q. 2d 2005 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s website, which framed content from plaintiff’s website, constituted copyright infringement. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied, where the court was unpersuaded by either party’s reliance on prior case law.

Plaintiff relied on Mirage Editions Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co., 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988) for the position that the framing constituted the infringing creation of a derivative work. Defendant relied on Lewis Galoob Toys Inc. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992) for the position that no derivative work is created by framing, since no portion of the copyrighted work is incorporated in a concrete or permanent form. The court held that neither decision controlled."

Source of Above "Framing" information
http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Infringement_Issues

We are about to see how expensive a Lawsuit can be in a "Framing" "Copyright" dispute as coming soon I will be filing a lawsuit against Blogher for "Framing" my Entire Blog Network and placing their ads on top, without my permission and I have over 400 Blogs.

Framing as an "Issue" Research Link
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Framing.htm

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter6/6-c.html

Fair Use Research Links

"Non-commercial use is often fair use. Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain. The fact that a work is published primarily for private commercial gain weighs against a finding of fair use. For example, using the Bob Dylan line "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" in a poem published in a small literary journal would probably be a fair use; using the same line in an advertisement for raincoats probably would not be."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html

http://www.investigativeblogger.com/ has no ads, and is not commercial really so fair use does not even seem to apply.  I was getting a massively important issue heard on my investigative blogger network. This blog does not "COMPETE" with the source site Blogher, yet Blogher competes directly with me by framing my entire site and every blog I have linked from it
http://www.blogher.com/frame.php?url=http://www.crystalcox.com

Much more coming on this Topic, on the Human Trafficking article and how "Blogher" operates their business in such a way as to use thousands of pages of other people's content, even if you have a youTube video that they cannot embed  framing it makes this video on your blog, their "Content" in which they have ads on in the upper left and a link to Blogher, and their logo as if it is their site.  Yet Blogher, Kristen Herwitz threatens me for quoting a small post on a MAJOR issue, and linking to the source post on their site.  Stay Tuned, as I now have a very big beef with Blogher and looks like we are all going to sue each other, will let you know how it works out.  Should be filed in Belmont San Mateo County, California where Blogher is based.

Kristen Herwitz Blogher Publishing Network.

Posted by Crystal L. Cox 0 Click Here to Read and Post Comments

Labels: , , ,

GMAC Mortgage lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage when it initiated the foreclosure proceedings

"

PATTERSON v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

Reginald A. Patterson and Diana V. Patterson, v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC.
No. 2100490.
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
Decided January 20, 2012.

On appeal, the Pattersons assert, among other things, that the trial court erred in determining that the foreclosure was valid. While the Pattersons’ appeal was pending, this court delivered its decision in Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).

In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC.

BAC then held a foreclosure sale at which it purchased Sturdivant’s house, and the auctioneer executed a foreclosure deed purporting to convey title to Sturdivant’s house to BAC. BAC was assigned the mortgage the same day as the foreclosure sale.

Thereafter, BAC brought an ejectment action against Sturdivant, claiming that it owned title to her house by virtue of the foreclosure deed. After the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of BAC, Sturdivant appealed to the supreme court, which transferred her appeal to this court. We held that BAC lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage because it had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings and that, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid.

We further held that, because the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid, BAC did not acquire legal title to Sturdivant’s house through the foreclosure deed and thus BAC did not own an interest in the house when it commenced its ejectment action.

We further held that, because BAC did not own any interest in Sturdivant’s house when it commenced its ejectment action, BAC did not have standing to bring that action and, consequently, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action.

Because BAC did not have standing to bring its ejectment action and the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment action, we held that the judgment of the trial court was void, and we vacated that judgment.

Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismissed the appeal.
In the case now before us, GMAC Mortgage, like BAC in Sturdivant, had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings.

Consequently, under our holding in Sturdivant, GMAC Mortgage lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage when it initiated the foreclosure proceedings, and, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed upon which GMAC based it ejectment claim are invalid.

Moreover, under our holding in Sturdivant, because GMAC Mortgage did not own any interest in the house, it lacked standing to bring its ejectment action against the Pattersons.

Because GMAC Mortgage lacked standing to bring the ejectment action, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is void and is hereby vacated. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismiss this appeal. Id.

JUDGMENT VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Pittman, Thomas, and Moore, JJ., concur.
Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result, with writing.
Bryan, J., dissents, with writing.
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge, concurring in the result.
Or as Garfield puts it…

With those words tens of thousands of foreclosures, if not millions, are cast into doubt and, in Alabama — arguably the most conservative state in the nation, thousands of foreclosures can be overturned after eviction, after the sale at “auction” because if the creditor did not have proof of the sale of the loan (including payment, to complete the transaction, then they couldn’t very well initiate any Notice of Default, Notice of Sale, or submit a “credit bid” at auction, simply because they were not the creditor."

Source of Above
http://4closurefraud.org/2012/01/24/bam-patterson-v-gmac-mortgage-llc-judgment-vacated-no-assignment-gmac-mortgage-did-not-own-any-interest-in-the-house/

Legal Decision
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20ALCO%2020120120002.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

Posted by Crystal L. Cox 0 Click Here to Read and Post Comments

Labels: , , ,

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.

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.

"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. 

Posted by Crystal L. Cox 0 Click Here to Read and Post Comments

Labels: , , ,

David Aman - Tonkon Torp - Leon Simson - Kevin Padrick - Obsidian Finance Group - Steven Hedberg - Pamela Griffith - Susan Ford - Tom Stilley - Sussman Shank, Perkins Coie, Judge Randall Dunn. Oregon Bankruptcy Courts. David Brown Obsidian Renewables.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/110162783/Crystal-Cox-Investigative-Blogger-Questions-Kevin-Padricks-Role-as-Bankruptcy-Trustee

Find the TRUTH out on Kevin Padrick for yourself.
http://www.kevinpadrick.com/


http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/


David Aman - Tonkon Torp - Leon Simson - Kevin Padrick - Obsidian Finance Group - Summit Bankruptcy Trustee.  Tonkon Torp Law Firm. Obsidian Renewableshttp://www.kevinpadrick.com/ - Outback Solar - David Brown.  Miller Nash, Sussman Shank, Steven Hedberg, Perkins Coie, Judge Randall Dunn, Susan Ford, Tom Stilley, Pamela Griffith, Bankruptcy Corruption, Oregon Bankruptcy Courts, Portland Oregon Corruption, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Free Speech, First Amendment.

Don't Ya Just Love them Google Alerts... ???

Posted by Crystal L. Cox 0 Click Here to Read and Post Comments

Kashmir Hill of Forbes Defends White Collar Crimes and Attacks Messenger. Kashmir Hill defends Kevin Padrick, as Kashmir Hill Does NO Real Research into the "Complicated Story". Kashmir Hill Forbes.

Kashmir Hill of Forbes is simply telling a tiny part of the story and with great discrimination.  Kashmir Hill seems to want to protect the crimes against victims in the US Bankruptcy courts and Kashmir Hill has not even researched the real ethics, behavior, lawsuits, business dealings of Kevin Padrick or of Obsidian Finance Group.  Kashmir Hill needs to look deeper or Kashmir Hill should have simply stayed out of this battle of wits she is obviously unarmed at.  See Kashmir Hill has not dug deep as David Carr of the New York Times Claims.  Kashmir Hill has simply listened to the word of the "bad guy" and shot the messenger per say with seemingly no accountability. Or even a drive to find the REAL STORY.

Kashmir Hill's Forbes Article Said "After a failed attempt to get the Oregon Attorney General to investigate Cox, Obsidian filed a defamation case in January 2011, and Padrick first met Cox on the first day of the trial."  


Kashmir Hill wrote this right after she posted an email accusing me of extortion, which is criminal and I have not had criminal charges against me.  Kashmir Hill has ruined my reputation in defending Kevin Padrick's, does this make sense?

Kashmir Hill has no liability for the damage she has cause me?  Did Kashmir Hill contact the Oregon Attorney General or simply take the word of Kevin Padrick whom many have legal and ethical issue with (http://www.kevinpadrick.com/) ?

Kashmir Hill said this just after posting an email from January 19th of 2011. So is Kashmir Hill  claiming that Kevin Padrick tried to get the Oregon Attorney General to investigate an email sent to his attorney AFTER he filed the lawsuit?  Kashmir Hill says in the Forbes article that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit after trying to get the Oregon Attorney General to Investigative Me.  So what was Kevin Padrick trying to get the Oregon Attorney General to investigate, when the Email she posted was sent AFTER the Lawsuit was Filed. Does this make ANY logical sense to Kashmir Hill ?

In context the email was sent as a Reply to a cease and desist, and was sent AFTER the lawsuit was filed, and between two attorneys, as I represented myself. And there were emails back and forth. All this IGNORED by the Irresponsible Journalism of Kashmir Hill.

Does Kashmir Hill have any investigating ability?  What Kevin Padrick told her does not add up, and with so many others with issue regarding Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group why would the Oregon Attorney General not investigate Kevin Padrick or Obsidian Finance Group?  Why does Kashmir Hill not investigate Kevin Padrick or Obsidian Finance Group?

So much money, so many victims and Kashmir Hill of Forbes focuses on an Email between the Plaintiff's attorney and me, a Pro Se Blogger trying to "Negotiate" with the Plaintiff's attorney, after a cease and desist so broad and vague, and after a lawsuit was filed.  Kashmir Hill is seriously negligent, flat out wrong and her post does not make sense to a rational mind that actually researches the story.

Yet, sadly most do not research the facts, documents, videos, depositions of the story and instead simply believe Kashmir Hill and not me.  Kashmir Hill has not investigated this story for 3 years, I have.  Kashmir Hill has no clue of the real story, yet Kashmir Hill jumps in with conclusions, accusations and harms me in every way and with NO accountability.

Obsidian Finance Group lost a loan due to what I posted, thing is I posted links to proof and the bank VP never contacted me, there was lots of information online about the story, and yet I was blamed when it was not my story.  I simply picked up the story and ran with it.

This story is huge, and the defamation accusation is false really. Obsidian Finance Group did not prove they lost one penny regarding this post and yet was awarded 2.5 million dollars.  It makes not sense, yet Kashmir Hill does not look into any of this. Kashmir Hill simply believes what the Zillionaires tell her to believe.


If Kashmir Hill did her homework she would see that there is lots more to all this.  For example, I am "affiliated" with a book, I have been writing for years and most have not published, however I have lots of ISBN numbers and 2 books registered with Bowker. I started a Publishing Company in 1996 and I have had other publications publish my writings.  I am more of an investigator then Kashmir Hill , that is a FACT.  And I am truly independent. Kashmir Hill has not looked into any of this and Kashmir Hill simply takes the hearsay of one Man and his Attorney, which is certainly NOT investigative reporting. 


Kashmir Hill says, "...  but a trial by jury found that her claims were false, and found her guilty of defamation." Where does this come from?  Does Kashmir Hill understand that it was the Opinion of One Oregon CPA, paid by the Plaintiff that the Jury had to go on to find me "guilty"?


Kashmir Hill of Forbes quotes Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group in say “She has decimated my business. It’s half of what it was,” says Padrick. “She’s ruined my reputation, my life.” the TRUTH is all I did was turn on a light in the room the bad things were happening in.  I did not make up that information, and I provided proof of my source and the Judge would not allow this information into the Trial. Kashmir Hill does not want the real story, but Kashmir Hill instead simply wants to make me look bad instead of printing the real facts of the case.


Kashmir Hill Says "A reminder here: she wasn’t able to prove at trial that what she had written was true. Do we really want to claim this person as one of our own, folks?"  Thing is in no way is Kashmir Hill like me.  See I read documents, depositions, watch videos of the parties at meetings, talk to many insiders and for years.  And Kashmir Hill just posts some jaded version of the story to shoot the messenger per say.

Instead Kashmir Hill should has why I was unable to prove at trial that what I wrote was true to the best of my ability?  See Kashmir Hill is NOT looking for the TRUTH but instead Kashmir Hill is looking to Defame Me, punish me, even though a Judge Jury already has.  And I never asked to be called "your own", I have been investigating corruption and speaking out for over 6 years and it has changed my life in every way.  Death Threats, Set Up by Judges, Stalked, Lied about, Harassed and all ignored by the Cops, Judges, FBI, State and Federal Prosecutors.

Obsidian Finance Group is really one of the smallest stories I write about.  Kashmir Hill is certainly not one of "your own".  See the bloggers, whistleblowers that I know, they do their homework, they have proof, documentation and experience extreme harassment and duress as they expose corruption.  See the bloggers that are like me, they face economic terrorism, cps threatens them, judges set them up, they are sued and starved out, threatened of death and more ...All because they dare to blog about what is really happening to them, or people they know.  Bloggers do this with back up, video, documents and not just posting hearsay and agenda.  Most of the time bloggers such as I am that expose real corruption, are not paid to expose this corruption and instead make money other ways from their blogs, ads or selling other product.  This way the story is pure and the ad dollars and politics does not control why they expose.  Bloggers are more credible as news then Forbes, New York Times, Fox, big media and certainly more credible then the yammerings of Kashmir Hill.


See I have been in this for 3 years, and I know tons about it.  Kashmir Hill took the word of the Plaintiff and ran a story, an attack against me with no base in real facts of this 3 year long story. 


Kashmir Hill says, "This has led to a slew of angry stories, pointing out that bloggers are journalists. But these stories have not dug deeply enough. The facts in the case are far more complicated, and after hearing them, most journalists will not want to include Cox in their camp."  Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger says YES this case is far more complicated and it is not about ONE email between a Pro Se Defendant Blogger and a Plaintiff's attorney.  This story is 3 years deep and has thousands of pages of documents, depositions, emails, and back story that needs to be researched before opening one's mouth as Kashmir Hill has done.  And I never asked "journalists' to include me in their "camp", that is just lame.  I do wish that Journalists, Investigative Reporters, Bloggers, and ALL would investigate Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group and bring justice to those they have harmed by presenting the FACTS instead of simply shooting the messenger.  However, it seems that most believe what they are told by big media and do not dig deeper.  Kashmir Hill is simply clueless on the TRUTH about Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group.  And she seems to have no accountability or remorse for inciting a riot against me, essentially accusing me of the crime of extortion with no background information, not looking at dates the lawsuit was filed and well not even digging into the story but simply jumping to the defense of a white collar criminal and attacking someone who is trying to expose corruption and help people.  I had no personal vendetta, I did not know Kevin Padrick, I had no money involved, I was simply getting the victims story found. 


Kashmir Hill sure is naive and gullible.  It Seems that Kashmir Hill did not look into anything that Kevin Padrick told her but instead just believed whatever he spewed out of his lying, evil mouth. 


Kashmir Hill's article said,
"Obsidian’s tech team found dozens of sites that appeared to have been created by Cox to write about Obsidian, says Padrick, and over 1,900 others that she had created to write about other people and companies. This is not the work of a journalist, but the work of someone intent on destroying reputations."

This is just ridiculous, they have no idea what I do, or why and this tech team has no clue as to what is really going on.  And to take Kevin Padrick's words as to why I supposedly have sites, without posting my version of why I have the sites or even reading my sites, Kashmir Hill just goes along with what Kevin Padrick says??? Really??

I have sites on my several businesses, sites on alternative energy, sites on alternative medicine and healing, sites supporting gay and lesbians, sites on real estate, sites on cancer and many other topics and my corruption sites are not the majority of my sites, and when I write on the bad guys, ya I go to the top of the search engines.

However, I did not destroy their reputation, they did this long before I showed up, I simply got the victims they created found as I am amazing at search engine placement and gave this as a gift to victims.  Kashmir Hill has no clue as to what I do or why.  


Kashmir Hill's article said, 

"Padrick told me this has been going on for three years. There is a rather complicated back story — involving his being appointed a Chapter 11 trustee for a business that went belly-up Ponzi-style in 2007, and some of those involved not being happy about misappropriated funds being reclaimed"
Yes Kashmir Hill it has been three years, and I got a bankruptcy whistleblower blog found.  They had problems with Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group and with David Aman of Tonkon Torp and I got them heard, found in the search engines.  I did not create the story, it WAS and IS .. not my Story.. Kashmir Hill has no clue the real back story, the breach of contract, the lies, the unethical behavior of Kevin Padrick... and Kashmir Hill is not about to dig deep, but instead naively believes a Zillionaire that makes Millions a Year off of other people's demise and all the while lies to and bullies his own clients, so that he can prey on their life's work.  DO YOUR HOMEWORK and STOP focusing on the messenger, I am Telling the TRUTH about the Dirty Rotten Scoundrel Kevin Padrick, Attorney and his Attorney David Aman. 
Also note about the Forbes article, and seemingly Kashmir Hill are only letting in negative comments about me.
Several people have told me that they posted positive comments on Forbes on work I had done for them, and Forbes rejected these comments.  Seems that Forbes simply wants to discredit the messenger.   I have commented to try and correct errors and my comments have been denied.  Kashmir Hill has me owning sites that I don't own. The Errors of Kashmir Hill of Forbes is shocking and she does nothing to correct them, even though she knows the facts and has a fancy editor.  


There is a comment on the Forbes Article I want to Comment on.. it says this..


"Truth would have been a defense, but the burden was on the other side. Instead, Cox even failed to show that she had a good faith reason to believe the statements were true. Apparently neither the jury nor the judge believed that her secret source was real." ~ I want to clarify.  I never claimed a Secret Source at the Trial.  I brought over 500 pages of documentations of my source, and of good faith reason.  The judge said it was hearsay and it was not allowed.  http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/in-obsidian-v-cox-i-provided.html


If you cannot read the document, email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com 


If you want the facts, find them.  If you don't care enough to dig deep then don't simply believe Kashmir Hill of Forbes or David Carr of the New York Times. 


Kashmir Hill is not telling you, "Nothing but the Truth"  Look beyond the one sided rant of Kashmir Hill and find the facts for yourself.



Posted by Crystal L. Cox 0 Click Here to Read and Post Comments

Labels: , , ,

David Carr, New York Times: Take A Deeper Look at What the New York Times, David Carr and Forbes is Saying and Support the Victims and NOT the Criminals.

David Carr and Kashmir Hill are NOT Telling the Whole Truth and Nothing But.

Do Not Simply Believe the New York Times, David Carr and Forbes because they are bigger then me, and more Established.  David Carr of the New York Times has an agenda to keep down New Media and David Carr of the New York Times has an Agenda to keep Woman in their place.

David Carr of the New York Times and Kashmir Hill of Forbes Seem to think it prudent to NOT print my side of the story regarding the now "infamous" email.  And David Carr and Kashmir Hill have no accountability, and David Carr keeps attacking my character though a Judge and Jury already has "punished" me.  Why?  Is David Carr the Eye for an Eye Police? Well this is to attack all bloggers, and to avoid doing research on the real story, of the real crimes. David Carr is a Lazy, Ignorant Journalist.

David Carr and Kashmir Hill get to claim protection under laws that don't apply to bloggers.  So David Carr and Kashmir Hill can legally say what they want about me, set me up, post flat out lies and have no accountability, as they demand accountability from me. Of which a Judge and Jury has already handed out.

David Carr and Kashmir Hill simply take the word of Kevin Padrick and his Attorney David Aman, who were both involved in the Summit Bankruptcy.  David Carr and Kashmir Hill need to discredit me so that my accusations are not taken serious.  Thing is the Department of Justice, FBI, and all other authorities ignore the real details of the bankruptcy courts and guys like Kevin Padrick have no oversight what so ever, even though they claimed they did. The Summit Bankruptcy should be VOID from the Start.  Kevin Padrick worked for the company that went bankrupt to help them Form a Plan of Reorganization, this is a signed contract between Summit and Obsidian Finance Group and then Kevin Padrick was a Trustee working on the other side, against them.

David Carr and Kashmir Hill seem to NOT want to Read anything and claim that Kevin Padrick has no one else that has had an issue with him, and has not been in any other similar situation.  The Truth is the Summit Bankruptcy had an Objection to the Fees filed by several insiders, in this there were emails between the Department of Justice Trustee, between David Aman and Robert Opera - one of the attorneys involved and Opera suggested issues of deferred gain, there was also tax exhibits and tons more and I had read this over and over, it was a public document and had been online for years, the court would not accept this as a source even though it was a source and that was the truth.  The Truth seemed to be irrelevant.  Here is the Objection to the Fees in the Summit Bankruptcy.

http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/judicial-proceeding-objection-to.html
..has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?

Internal Emails In the Objection to Fees, has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CwWgyxFNljyhDmrl8-YfDfNuRKPtDmcwUw7-LNDLysU/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

eMails between Jeanette Thomas, Perkins Coie and Mark Neuman Summit

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fu2PsbRCqT3XSwYeSyfD2WRh256dbnM-maLnqy5XK_Y/edit?hl=en_US
... has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?

David Aman, Tonkon Torp was involved in the Summit Bankruptcy and in my Case David Aman represented Kevin Padrick to not only defend Obsidian and silence me, but also to protect Tonkon Torp Law Firm and their Involvement.  David Aman had knowledge of deferred gain issues and ignored it.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J4dSs5S2e-B3cZjiT7AZ8-aoxse0qoTEhHxSzMzwmX4/edit?hl=en_US

Here is the Deposition of Summit Principal Mark Neuman
http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/summit-accomodators-mark-neuman.html
...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?

Here is the Contract Obsidian Finance Had with Summit, the Debtor BEFORE they HAD to go bankrupt, AFTER calling Obsidian Fnance Group, Kevin Padrick to Help them so they did not have to go bankrupt.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O_Et0IHaUuQnAnQ9nblox4mzJxc_GIP_wuUF3vA-9-s/edit?hl=en_US
.... has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?

Below is a Meeting in Video, of Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group with Summit, who later became the Debtor and Kevin Padrick later became the Trustee working against his own client, Kevin is on the far Right.
http://www.youtube.com/user/KevinPadrick
...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?


Other Documents of Source ... has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ayq9PQ6a32_I-AdvLAlBS9HcxWvXIcTK1lsEMA7clQ8/edit?hl=en_US

Kevin Padrick Rejecting Offers...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IAH9w9wBVAMG6dCaGXIsRkZkLDApo1osDdH-x1ZxYIY/edit?hl=en_US

Summit Press Release...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zYfrM_1XnQwcao3i4wZJhB8aXyPoJb_oLh1j5PEPUSo/edit?hl=en_US

Also a Third Party Blog was My Source and the Judge said that was irrelevant, as I was responsible for if it was true and all bloggers do that.  My case a perfect example, thousands of you reposted the Seattle weekly article and it had information that was WRONG.  Your all liable under this judgement.  Third Party blogs are protected but not for me.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C8c37jl8cwkfLvcbm_bKnm3lpsfz4SfrHePPjcvB83s/edit?hl=en_US

David Carr ignores that HomeStreet Bank in Washington filed an Objection to the Fees Against Kevin Padrick also, with Claims of Conflicts with Miller Nash and Over Billing, Summit is not an Isolated case and none of it was my story.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tstf6BAeXFHFmMaFodmURp6uUDWm6U1SqeqBu2HgSvw/edit?hl=en_US

Lake County Oregon has a Group to Fight Back and Obsidian Finance Group is at the center of this battle, here is one of the letters from the Oregon Solar Development Battles.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gFKNVdnKvPUkHo3WUjxvyxUN4mCaMXpeuqXy7W9fV2c/edit
...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?

I Told Their Story, it Was not My Story. I wanted to get them heard and to protect others it was or may happen to in the future. David Carr and Kashmir Hill have NOT read any of the documents? Nor does David Carr and Kashmir Hill have any interest in the facts, truth or my side.  David Carr and Kashmir Hill will be sued by me, Pro Se Blogger Crystal Cox Soon, as David Carr and Kashmir Hill are protecting the Criminals and Protecting the Foothold of Big Media and I DO NOT APPROVE.

Here was my Statement of Source NOT allowed into the Trial
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HTDv8q9eaMKzZ_8UhKwqhaEs89r6fB6csC5MRRzXZmE/edit?hl=en_US

Here is the Trial Documents I Gave to Show the Source of that One Blog Post
http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/in-obsidian-v-cox-i-provided.html

So instead of Investigating the Crimes I write about ,and there are tons, they investigate me.  They are scouring my bank accounts, calling my clients, setting me up for alleged criminal activity and basically sending a lynch mob after me, and nothing I can do really but wait for it.  As David Carr continues his rampages to discredit me and even have me a lesson for teens to talk about in New York Schools, all the while Ignoring my side of the story even though he talked to me.  And David Carr ignores that I am not the one accusing Kevin Padrick of these Indiscretions and action, I am simply writing about those who are.

There will be much more on other people, companies that have issue with Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group at the Link Below, I will add more over time, though David Carr says I am the only one with a Beef regarding Kevin Padrick and Summit. I have tons of documents and information, have for YEARS.


...David Carr and Kashmir Hill have NOT done their Homework, and have defamed me, accused me of criminal activity and posted false information on an email that was between TWO Attorneys, I was Pro Se.. You Will get to defend this in court .. David Carr and Kashmir Hill ..

Quantum Case in this Same Court

Conflict of Interest Form that Judge Hernandez Refused OVER and OVER to Sign in my case

The Tiffany Craig Case, Yet for Me None of this Applied

This Blog was online and still is

There is lots more information on Summit then Me, I simply got their story found in the search engines.  I hope to Sue Forbes and the New York Times for Endangering my Life and Defamation.  As regarding their version of that email they are accusing me of a crime, giving me no Criminal Attorney and not posting my side.  There were surrounding emails and it was a "Cease Fire" "Negotiation" between 2 attorneys as I was Pro Se.  There is lots more to it.  However David Carr and Kashmir Hill are protected to ruin my life further and gather a lynch mob for something the "bad guy" told them happened, that did not happen quite that way. 


Summit Bankruptcy Filing

More Documents of the Case Will be at 

Also to Examine in depth Every mistake that David Carr has ever possibly made, mis-quotes, flat out lies, inspiring a lynch mob, ruining lives without facts and more.. Coming Soon..

Note:  Any documents you cannot find on this page and want email me Crystal@CrystalCox.com.  My main source was the Objection to the Fees in Summit and Mark Neuman, Summit Principals Deposition if you want those and can't find them email me.  I was always telling the victims story and the angle David Carr of the New York Times is Running With, as Well as Forbes is FLAT Wrong.

I will also soon be posting my story in an easier to understand format, also I will be making demands of the New York Times and Forbes, and at some point file lawsuits against them. I have tons of information, videos and documents if you want the Truth or you can just run with Forbes and New York Times, but remember even if I was guilty of a crime, which I am not, but if I was, then how would that have anything to do with if that post was true or NOT?

Think for Yourself.

Do your Homework.

.. NEVER Ever Believe the discriminating illiterate David Carr and Kashmir Hill ..

Crystal L. Cox
a Big Fan of Reading..
Investigative Blogger..

Posted by Crystal L. Cox 0 Click Here to Read and Post Comments

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Is WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization acting unEthically to Protect the High Finance Crimes of Proskauer Rose Law Firm? Dawn Osborne Recusal ?

World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO - in my Alleged OPINION, is helping Proskauer Rose, a Major international law firm,  to cover up a decade old technology theft worth 13 Trillion Dollars, while at the same time to get Millons of Dollars worth of search engine placement in one corrupt, conflicted WIPO Decision.    

The World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO is supposed to settle domain name disputes Fairly and Neutrally, but really it looks like World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO is an easy way to not have to bribe a judge, manipulate a State Bar, or even go thru the Legal System in any way.  Instead WIPO enables those with influence and money, such as Proskauer Rose Law Firm to simply stop the leak of information on what their lawyers are really up to.  

WIPO seems to be a way to avoid the law, and previous cases that protect the domain name owner and to simply remove, among others,  3 amazingly strong domain names from the Search Engines that are in the top 10 search for "Proskauer Rose".

Looks to me like Proskauer Rose Law Firm is using WIPO to get out of a 13 Trillion Dollar Liability, a Federal RICO Lawsuit, an International Patent Scandal, a DOJ Complaint, an FBI Investigation, and an Indictment..  while at the same time handing over to Proskauer Rose Law Firm Million of Dollars worth of my work, top search engine placement forever for free and violating my constitutional rights. 

It seems to me that Proskauer Rose Law Firm is using an international arbritration system in order to shut me up, because Proskauer Rose Law Firm does not want more hulabaloo in the Amercian Courts where the proof is overwhelming on corruption among Proskauer Rose Law Firm (iViewit, Standford, Enron, Madoff, Varsity Brands and tons More).  So Proskauer Rose Law Firm is using WIPO to cover up my Investigative Media Blogs, though I can prove by my web stat counter that Proskauer Rose Law Firm new about these blogs for over 2 years.

Why now is Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Proskauer Rose Attorney engaging Jenifer deWolf Paine to use WIPO, in order to cover up the truth about Proskauer Rose?

Is it because of the break in a 10 year case where the top officials in the Government of New York - the NYAG are being exposed for what really happened and now Proskauer Rose has no more Favors to Call in, so Proskauer Rose is using WIPO, based in Switzerland to Steal the Intellectual Property of a Montana Blogger, Blogging on Proskauer Rose Corruption in the UK, New York, Florida, California and More. 

Link to NYAG Exposed

So Does WIPO Aid and Abet Criminal Activity in the Name of Neutrality and help major corporations to stomp on the rights of those who don't have billions to fight back?

World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO claims that it came to the attention of World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO that the Panelist chosen by Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Dawn Osburne of  Palmer Biggs Legal international House had a conflict and has "chosen" to recluse herself.

Proskauer Rose chose Dawn Osburne,  Palmer Biggs Legal international House to hand them my Intellectual Property worth Millions upon Millions and to them Worth Trillions as taking these particular domain names with the help of someone the "Inside" at World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO would quiet down the story of how Proskauer Rose Law Firm manipulated the New York Supreme Court, Federal and State Judges, Cops, Investigators, Attorneys, SEC Investigators, DOJ investigators, the USPTO and more in a 13 Trillion Dollar Technology Theft Case.  Proskauer Rose wanted their connections, and favortism from  Palmer Biggs Legal international House, Dawn Osburne to ensure a WIN for Proskauer Rose to simply take my domain names, no muss .. no fuss.. no rights for me.. just a major law firm trying to control information on the Internet by CHOOSING a supposed  "fair and neutral" panelist to decide the fate of my Intellectual Property, Domain Name to "Get Rid Of" the evidence of Proskauer Rose's whitewashing and high finance crimes. 

Proskauer Rose knew that Dawn Osburne had a Conflict of Interest, that is Why Proskauer Rose Chose Dawn Osburne.  IS this not illegal?  My livlihood, my years of work, my asset ... and Proskauer Rose Law Firm conspires to STEAL IT.. and this is Ok?  Does WIPO care that Proskauer Rose did this "Obvious" act of contempt? Oh yeah WIPO is not a court of law, oh well Proskauer Rose Still has connections to control them.  Proskauer Rose should LOSE automatically for trying to "rig" the outcome of my case.Proskauer Rose did not want clients to read the TRUTH, so they can't stop the TRUTH pretty much, but they can take my names with the help of WIPO Corruption, and a little help from a "Conflicted" Panelist.  This way, as Proskauer Rose knows, most people don't search past the first page in Google, so if this Crystal Cox Blogger has 3 Domain Names on the first page of the search engines, well they if we get WIPO, and their inside panelist 
Palmer Biggs Legal international House, Dawn Osburne Proskauer Rose Lawyers Really Are.
Proskauer Rose is not looking for a judgement against me, or a court to stop me from talking about them.  Proskauer Rose is not manipulating a court to make me stop blogging about the "Alleged" corruption at Proskauer Rose Law Firm.  Proskauer Rose, by now knows that I am Brilliant, and Very Good at this Internet Search thing..so Proskauer Rose Attorneys surely know there are thousands of domain names I could buy and continue my supposed "Parroting" of Eliot Bernstein.  So it is not about copyright, trademark or competition... it is about covering up the TRUTH about Proskauer Rose's Corruption, whitewashing and crimes.  And at the same time the added perk of Search Engine placement worth millions for FREE. 

Proskauer Rose has defamed me, Proskauer Rose has flat out lied about me, Proskauer Rose has given legal brief documents to a Domain Arbritration Association that talk about the Iviewit Technology theft and seems to beg for someone, anyone to believe for some reason that Proskauer Rose Attorneys are innocent when there is proof on top of proof that Proskauer Rose is guilty.  And the Iviewit Scandal is not the only one I write on.  Proskauer Rose, Jenifer Dewolf Paine has degraded me, slammed me, defamed me, lied about me and flapped her mouth quite enough and well with the wall of corruption so high and Proskauer Rose control the courts, I have no doubt that WIPO will simply turn my domain names over to Proskauer Rose Law Firm, however KNOW This, I will still beat you in the Search Engine, I will Still expose the Corruption at Proskauer Rose and the TRUTH will remain the Truth no matter how many people you get to aid and abet your white collar, whitewashing criminal activity, these folks such as Dawn Osburne will simply be added to the ever growing Proskauer Rose Crime Chart.

So just how is Dawn Osborn, Palmer Biggs Legal international House Attorney in a Conflict of Interest with the Prokauer Rose Law Firm?  It is my Personal Property, my Years of Work, my TIME, my Money at stake and I request from WIPO a statement from Dawn Osborn, Palmer Biggs Legal international House as to exactly how Dawn Osborn, is conflicted, and WIPO denies me this right.  I have a right to Prove that Proskauer Rose engaged in Criminal Activities, I am in a $450 Milion Dollar Lawsuit against Proskauer Rose and these domain names are my asset as well as prove in major federal investigation. 

Seems that World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO (Caitlin Tubergen, Case Worker) Claims that it came to their attention there was a conflict, while at the same time seeming to say that Dawn Osborn, Palmer Biggs Legal international House  chose to remove herself from the Panel, what is the real story and why have I no right to know?

It seems pretty "Obvious" to me that World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO (Caitlin Tubergen, Case Worker), Dawn Osborn, Palmer Biggs Legal international House, and Proskauer Rose are doing some back end, sideways and secret deals behind closed doors to take my domain names and in one double dealing, corrupt conflicted sweep the Stealing of My Domain Names, My Intellectual property would discredit the SEC Investigative Reports, Remove evidence from the Internet where my domain names are listed in Federal Court Cases, silence the Truth about Proskauer Rose in top search engine placement and get Proskauer Rose Intellectual Property worth millions that I build over years. 

So just how is Proskauer Rose Connected to  Dawn Osborn, Palmer Biggs Legal international House? I will be posting tons on that soon.  Got a Tip?  Crystal@CrystalCox.com 

Here are Some eMails from Caitlin Tubergen, Case Worker at WIPO in my Domain Name Proskauer Rose Mafia, Intellectual Property Stealing Case. 

****
From: Domain.Disputes@wipo.int 
Subject: (CT) D2011-0679 Panelist Recusal
To: crystal@crystalcox.com, jpaine@proskauer.com
Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 5:53 AM

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

WIPO Logo
June 14, 2011

Re: Case No. D2011-0679
Dear Parties, 

Please be advised that due to a recently identified conflict, it has been necessary for the previously appointed Co-Panelist (Dawn Osborne) to recuse herself from the case. 

Accordingly, the Center is now seeking to appoint an alternate Co-Panelist (in accordance with Party preference) to hear the matter on a priority basis, and will revert to the Parties in this regard as soon as possible. 

Apologies for any inconvenience caused by delay in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Caitlin Tubergen 
Case Manager   "


Ok so how was this Conflict Identified? 

what Was the Conflict? why have I no right to know?
Recently Identified My Ass, Dawn Osborne is no longer willing to Be named in my Lawsuit, and Dawn Osborne did not realize I would DEMAND a Conflict of Interest.  Dawn Osborne has secrets and was going to favor Proskauer Rose, til she saw how hot all this was getting and did not want to affect her financial status, way of life or professional career. 

I, Crystal L. Cox, AGAIN request a Detailed, in Writing Signed statement as to what Conflict of Interest that Dawn Osborne has with Proskauer Rose that  Dawn Osborne has to recuse herself from the case.  I am already defamed by this, it already hurts my media and what i do for a living, if Proskauer Rose was pulling in a "favor" to shut me up, I have a right to know.

Caitlin Tubergen, Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center seems to think that I do not have a right to this information regarding my asset, my quality of life, my business, my asset and legal case. 


The Recusal reason is major in my legal action in this issue, for if Proskauer Rose Picked Dawn Osborne, than obviously Proskauer Rose was trying to pull in a favor to steal my domain names.  I have no sure way to know that Dawn Osborne is not influencing others on the panel.  I have Firmly requested that the NEW panelists sign a Conflict of Interest Form, so far Caitlin Tubergen, Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center refuses me this right saying that it is not Standard of Practice.

This asset is MY PROPERTY, just like a building, real estate, gold .. my life's work, my money, my time and its NOT standard of practice for a WIPO panelist member to swear in writing and sign to the fact that they are in no way favoring the complainant, have not had dealings with them, have no personal or business relationship in ANY way... are YOU Kidding.. well that basically says that WIPO can do what they want, favor who they want and Answers to NO ONE and in the name of Fair and Neutral Decision.. that is Simply Bullshit !!

Do I seem to "Aggressive" .. well if you had a property worth Millions and a Corrupt Law Firm was pulling in favors to steal it and you had no rights it seemed, the least you would do is tell your story for all to see what is really going on behind the scenes.  

I will in NO WAY take this passively, even when and if WIPO gives you my Domain Names I will still Stomp your Ass in the Search Engines, and I will Still get iViewit heard as well as many others that Proskauer Rose Attorneys have made victims of.  You will not Silence me thru ANY action, not Even Death will Silence what I have built to EXPOSE YOU. 

I am telling the Truth, I am on the Right side of the Moral Compass, I am standing up for Inventors Rights and For Victims Rights... I am an investigative blogger and very good at it, and I will not back down to you Proskauer Rose. NO Way, No How.. So Call Eliot Bernstein, Fix This... and Do the Right Thing .. By Law.. 

****

If Proskauer Rose did PICK Dawn Osborne to favor Proskauer Rose Law Firm, then this also should be noted, proved and used in SEC Complaints, a Federal RICO Lawsuit and other Legal Action against Proskauer Rose that includes these domain names in Federal Complaints, Legal Briefs and other Documents of Evidence.

IF Dawn Osborne, or any other panelist, or anyone at WIPO including Caitlin Tubergen is proven in conspiracy with Proskauer Rose,then they are indeed Liable, and may also face criminal charges.  Obviously you can understand my need for in writing signed proof from Dawn Osborne as to why she recused her self and this far into the procedure.  Much suspicion has come up over all this at this point.   And yet WIPO, Caitlin Tubergen seems to think its none of my business why Dawn Osborne is no longer in charge of my fate. Oh and Surely the New Guy Robert A. Badgley is neutral. I mean if WIPO Case Manger, Caitlin Tubergen says that Robert A. Badgley is going to be fair and neutral well then surely Robert A. Badgley is right?

I Intend to turn over every stone on Robert A. Badgley, and if there is a Proskauer Rose Connection I will find it, prove it and EXPOSE IT !!

WIPO Case Manger, Caitlin Tubergen says I did not pick a Preference of panelist in this case. Thing is I don't know any of these folks, why would I.  And if  WIPO Case Manger, Caitlin Tubergen is telling the TRUTH and the panelist are fair and not biased, then why would I have to?

I would assume that I would be treated fair and neutral, however given the way this is playing out and how long it took Dawn Osborne to admit her conflict and Dawn Osborne only admitted conflict due to my online writings, and my constant asking, otherwise Dawn Osborne would have just favored Proskauer Rose and aided and abetted Proskauer Rose Law Firm to Steal my Intellectual Property. WIPO would never have asked a question on any of it. 

This decision, the panelists, the back story, every detail will play out for years.  So I hope that all are really neutral, as Proskauer Rose is bullying me and I will stand up for my rights even if WIPO discriminates against me and takes my Intellectual Property even in light of the TaubmanSucks.com case and the Mike Morgan Vs. Goldman Sachs case, WIPO is still helping Proskauer Rose to come for my PROPERTY.  This story will NEVER go away.  Fact is Fact.  Truth is TRUTH. 

If Proskauer Rose takes these names, WIPO has set a precedence that attempts to overturn the intellectual property laws.  This will be exposed.  Also if WIPO take my domain names this will directly impact my Financial Status, and WIPO panelists and key players will be named in legal action, period.  

I have demanded that the remaining panelists sign an affirmation that they, nor family members have EVER had ANY dealings with anyone at or related to Proskauer Rose in any way, if Not WIPO and the Panelists will be Liable.  I am denied this right by WIPO.

More Emails from WIPO

--- On Wed, 6/15/11, Disputes, Domain  wrote:From: Disputes, Domain 
Subject: RE: (CT) D2011-0679 Panelist Recusal
To: "Crystal L. Cox" 
Cc: "jpaine@proskauer.com" 
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 8:04 AM
Dear Ms. Cox,

Further to your attached email, to clarify, Ms. Osborne has recused herself due to a self-identified potential conflict of interest in that it appears that her firm has previously acted for or in connection with the Complainant.  The recusal and appointment of an alternate panelist is to protect perceptions of the Panel’s independence overall.  
Obviously the recusal of Ms. Osborne has no impact on the presiding Panel (Robert A. Badgley) or the Panel nominated to serve, in the absence of any preference expressed by you, as the Respondent’s co-panel (Debra J. Stanek).

It is not WIPO Center practice to require signed statements from recusing panelists as to their stated reasons regarding panel recusal.

We trust the above has answered your questions and allays any concerns you may have.

Sincerely,
Caitlin Tubergen 
Case Manager "

Oh Gee Well that certainly "clears it up" .. clarify's the whole deal.. whew.. THANKS... 

So Dawn Osborne recused HERSELF? so does WIPO do any due diligence on these guys, or is it a free for all, who ever wants somebody's domain name can just call one of the 1500 WIPO panelist and pull some strings and WIPO does no research on it, and in this jeapordized millions in my asses, my livelihood and my quality of life and this is Legal? Fair? Neutral? Ethical?  I Don't Think So. 

Caitlin Tubergen - Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center says, in Regard to the Dawn Osborne Recusal on my case ..  that Dawn " Osborne has no impact on the presiding Panel (Robert A. Badgley) " - SO does "Dawn Osborne" or anyone at or related to Proskauer Rose Law Firm 

Caitlin Tubergen - Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center,  Also States to Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox that..  and I Quote "It is not WIPO Center practice to require signed statements from recusing panelists as to their stated reasons regarding panel recusal. "  Well it damn well better be, people will sue you all ... Domain Names are worth more then real estate in many cases.  Your Decisions affect peoples lives, wallets, quality of life and financial portfolio.  These people have a right to the TRUTH. 

So this is why Proskauer Rose Law Firm did not sue me to take my domain names, or get me into any court of law. See the Corrupt Elite Attorney Fraternity at Proskauer Rose led in this case by  Jenifer deWolf Paine on behalf of Matthew Triggs, Joseph Leccese, Gregg M. Mashberg, Kenneth Rubenstein and the Proskauer Rose Law Firm has simply used WIPO in order for this not to get messy and to darn expensive and to ensure a swift win, and not years of a court battle.  This way Proskauer Rose .. Matthew Triggs, Joseph Leccese, Gregg M. Mashberg, Kenneth Rubenstein and the Proskauer Rose Law Firm can get those names out of search quickly so the investigators don't see and the clients don't see.
An ASSET of this value and it is not Standard of Practice for WIPO to ask for a conflict of interest agreement or a signed statement as to why the panelist is recusing themselves, no Wonder the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm took this route, it is much easier then doing the right thing, obeying the law, and having any kind of ethics when STEALING a domain name and silencing a blogger. 

Caitlin Tubergen - Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ends my Intellectual Property Rights Violated email with "We trust the above has answered your questions and allays any concerns you may have."

SO who is the WE that Caitlin Tubergen - Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is talking about?  And no that certainly does NOT answer my question nor anywhere near address my Concern.

A major multi-billion dollar international law firm does not like the FACT that I have 3 domain names in the top 10 for Internet Searches for their name and they are just going to take them, whatever favors they need to call in to do it and WIPO does not even raise an eyebrow.  

Also Not the the Reclusal was after this post and others calling them out

Keep in mind Caitlin Tubergen, WIPO Saying "Obviously the recusal of Ms. Osborne has no impact on the presiding Panel (Robert A. Badgley)" so that when I prove this flat out wrong, Caitlin Tubergen, WIPO will be Liable.  Oh and don't worry about denying me the "reasons for reclusal" I will find out and I will post it. 

Todays Email from Caitlin Tubergen, WIPO

"Dear Ms. Cox,

The Center acknowledges receipt of your below email, and kindly reminds the parties that all case-related communications should be copied to the other party in accordance with the UDRP Rules.

As previously communicated, you may note that the Center is currently in the process, in light of Ms. Osbourne's previously-advised recusal on the basis stated, of inviting an alternate Co-Panelist for Complainant's nominee in accordance with paragraph 6 of the UDRP Rules.

As a pre-requisite for appointment, such Panelist would need to submit the necessary Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, a copy of which is publically available on the Center's website.

We will advise both Parties of the relevant appointment shortly.

Sincerely,

Caitlin Tubergen
Case Manager
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center "

Note to Caitlin Tubergen, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center : 
Please Note if you want the lying Bitch Jenifer DeWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose Attorney to have a copy of my Rights Violating case.. emails to WIPO.. a Case that Proskauer Rose, Jenifer DeWolf Paine initiated on behalf of Matthew Triggs, Joseph Leccese, Gregg M. Mashberg, Kenneth Rubenstein and the Proskauer Rose Law Firm then you can forward the emails to her.

I have no Obligation, nor the respect to add the email in as a Copy to Jenifer DeWolf, Proskauer Rose Law Firm.. .. who is trashing me, defaming me, lying about me and threatening me.. If WIPO is the Fair and Neutral Arbitration Association well then you can forward it to Proskauer .. your Buddies.. .  I "Obviously" expect to be treated Fair and Neutral, HOWEVER the Proof is Piling up that there is NO fair and neutral at WIPO.  

******

Dawn Osborne Prokauer Rose Connections, more coming soon..
Here are a Few Research Links on Dawn Osborne for now




Much More Coming Soon ( Gotta wonder though if she is so great at Intellectual Property Laws and Domain Names.. why don't she own 

http://www.DawnOsborne.com/  and if its wrong to own the name of another why not just take it from the person who does.. Proskauer Rose thinks that Josephe Leccesse and Gregg Mashberg have that right as if they are the only ones in the world with that name.. so why not Dawn Osborne? 


Research Links on Proskauer Rose Corruption






Posted by Crystal L. Cox 0 Click Here to Read and Post Comments

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Template by - Abdul Munir | Daya Earth Blogger Template