These are Some of my TikTok Videos on a series I did called “Oh Yeah Port Townsend”, promoting Port Townsend, as it is my passion. This Series is mostly Port Townsend Businesses, except for a few cool cars. Click the link below and at the bottom it says load more, there are a lot of them. For the Love of the REAL PORT TOWNSEND, check em’ out.
Saturday, September 17, 2022
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Stephanie Ogle and the Washington Department of Ecology, Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend are NOT doing ENOUGH to Protect YOUR Rights to Breathe Clean NON-Toxic Air.
The Washington Department of Ecology is NOT doing their JOB of protecting the Ecology of Port Townsend Washington. In fact the Washington Department of Ecology is allowing the Port Townsend Paper Mill to pollute our air and water and to continue to use 14 MILLION Gallons of Water a day in a time of EMERGENCY drought.
Stephanie Ogle of the Washington Department of Ecology is assigned to regulate the Port Townsend Paper Mill and claims to follow up on all odor complaints. However, all this seems to be is to contact the mill and see if everything was normal and okey dokey on that day. The Mill says Ya all is well and well that is that. So it would seem that the Washington Department of Ecology is really out to protect the mill and not the water, air, soil, and people in Washington.
Kind of like asking a criminal if they committed the crime, of course they say NOPE sure didn't.
Stephanie Ogle and the Washington Department of Ecology is not really a People BEFORE Profit sort of group. Yet they are paid by public dollars.
The Bottom Line is the mill is, in my understanding of the laws, breaking the clean air, clean water and clean soil laws. They are harassing us constantly and ruining our legal right to quiet enjoyment of property. The Port Townsend Paper Mill, I allege, is breaking the Clean Air Act, and yes are committing crimes on the residents of Port Townsend.
The Washington Department of Ecology allegedly logs odor complaints, SO WHAT. They are supposed to protect the water, soil, air and people of Washington. Instead they protect the profits of the Crown Paper Group, not even based out of Washington.
Complaining about Odor is Futile. They don't do anything but pay us lip service.
The DOE and EPA does NOT address the poisons we are clearly breathing nor the massive clean water that is poisoned by the mill. And for WHAT? The alleged smell of MONEY.
That money smell is for the lung doctors, the mill owners, the investors and not for Port Townsend. There are clean jobs that could come in and there is tons of clean up jobs. The PT Mill gets grants and lot's of hand outs, plus they use 14 Million Gallons of water a day. SURELY there can be a way to create 400 jobs in PT without poisoning us and ruining our quality of life.
Stephanie Ogle of the Washington Department of Ecology gets her deep investigative results from the mill itself.
And she says "Generally speaking, the operations at the mill were normal and the air pollution control equipment was operating within their normal ranges. They did not have any leaks/spills/abnormal releases during that period."
What does "generally" MEAN? This is our precious air. We have a right to clean air. The harassing smell that the PT mill puts out is toxic and annoying. There is no such thing as generally speaking. WE WANT FACTS, and the Clean Air and Water Laws OBEYED. The Washington Department of Ecology is SUPPOSED to make sure the laws are followed and not CODDLE corporations.
What does "normal" and "normal ranges" MEAN?
Normal Ranges is the PROBLEM. The Mill's NORMAL toxic spewing is poisoning us, harassing us, and is in violation of the Clean Air Act. It is wrong, immoral and I believe flat out against the law to put these toxins in our air and water daily. The NORMAL RANGES need to be stopped as they are unconstitutional, unlawful and a complete violation of citizen rights and property rights.
Stephanie Ogle also says;
"While the emissions from the mill are within their normal operations, the weather can have an amplifying affect on the odors that are generated at the facility. It has been hotter and more humid recently and it looks like there are have been some periods of low to no winds, which can also increase the intensity of the odors. This may be why the odors have been worse during the past week.
I will continue to request that they investigate the odor complaints and I will let you know if they do find anything outside of their normal operating ranges."
ENOUGH with the blaming the Weather. JUST Stop the source of the toxins and DO YOUR JOB. Stop mumbling about weather, generally and normally and get STRICT about what is really going on. Protect the people paying your wage. The mill is SERIOUS bad every single day it is operating REGARDLESS of humidity, wind, weather or other mumbo jumbo.
STOP LETTING THE Bad Guys Regulate themselves. STOP calling the perpetrator and asking them if they are committing the alleged crime. INVESTIGATE yourself. Monitor the Air, Obey the Law.
Contact Stephanie Ogle and tell her what you think
Stephanie Ogle, PE
W2R - Industrial Section
360-407-6355
Complain to the Department of Ecology at
Stephanie Ogle at stog461@ecy.wa.gov
Also Complain to the Port Townsend City Manager David Timmons, the Port Townsend Water Manager Ian Jablonski, and the Port Townsend Mayor.
It is the Job of the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County to PROTECT your property rights, constitutional rights, rights to enjoy your property and to not be daily harassed and assaulted by horrible TOXIC odors.
Contact Information for the Above:
250 Madison Street, Suite 2
Port Townsend WA 98368
Phone: 360-379-5047
Fax: 360-385-4290
http://www.cityofpt.us/contactlist.htm
Complain to Ian Jablonski, City of Port Townsend water quality manager , ya know the guy that said to the PT leader that YOU should conserve water. Even though the mill uses 14 MILLION gallons a day. http://www.ptleader.com/news/drought-city-raises-lords-lake-a-second-time-this-year/article_e908d478-19f7-11e5-80cb-13bf9568a566.html
City Council Main:
Position #1 Michelle Sandoval msandoval@cityofpt.us
Position #2 Catharine Robinson crobinson@cityofpt.us
Position #3 Deborah Stinson dstinson@cityofpt.us
Position #4 Robert Gray rgray@cityofpt.us
Position #5 Pamela Adams padams@cityofpt.us
Position #6 - Mayor David King dking@cityofpt.us
Position #7 - Deputy Mayor Kris Nelson knelson@cityofpt.us
The City of Port Townsend can enact LAWS to protect your water, air and soil. Example Below
There Could be a Port Townsend Environmental Bill of Rights Like this City
http://smdp.com/city-council-passes-environmental-bill-of-rights/119705
The Mill and Washington Department of Ecology Refuses to Protect Port Townsend. So complain directly to the City and the County and Get the Mill Out of Our County, or at the least REALLY actually use new technology to clean the air. They are blatantly poisoning and harassing you, with NO transparency and NO accountability.
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend,
WA 98368
jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
Phone: 360.385.9100
Link for More Contact Information
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/
Sue the County and the Mill, and the DOE for violations of the Clean Air Act and more cause of actions. Stand up for your Rights. It takes us all to STAND up United.
Sue the Port Townsend Paper Mill like the story below
http://www.chillicothegazette.com/story/news/local/2015/06/30/glatfelter-faces-million-lawsuit/29514095/
You can File an attorney general complaint and a Department of Justice Complaint. You don't have to have an attorney to file complaints nor to SUE all of the above. You have RIGHTS. No more settling for hey that's the Smell of MONEY.
Stephanie Ogle of the Washington Department of Ecology is assigned to regulate the Port Townsend Paper Mill and claims to follow up on all odor complaints. However, all this seems to be is to contact the mill and see if everything was normal and okey dokey on that day. The Mill says Ya all is well and well that is that. So it would seem that the Washington Department of Ecology is really out to protect the mill and not the water, air, soil, and people in Washington.
Kind of like asking a criminal if they committed the crime, of course they say NOPE sure didn't.
Stephanie Ogle and the Washington Department of Ecology is not really a People BEFORE Profit sort of group. Yet they are paid by public dollars.
The Bottom Line is the mill is, in my understanding of the laws, breaking the clean air, clean water and clean soil laws. They are harassing us constantly and ruining our legal right to quiet enjoyment of property. The Port Townsend Paper Mill, I allege, is breaking the Clean Air Act, and yes are committing crimes on the residents of Port Townsend.
The Washington Department of Ecology allegedly logs odor complaints, SO WHAT. They are supposed to protect the water, soil, air and people of Washington. Instead they protect the profits of the Crown Paper Group, not even based out of Washington.
Complaining about Odor is Futile. They don't do anything but pay us lip service.
The DOE and EPA does NOT address the poisons we are clearly breathing nor the massive clean water that is poisoned by the mill. And for WHAT? The alleged smell of MONEY.
That money smell is for the lung doctors, the mill owners, the investors and not for Port Townsend. There are clean jobs that could come in and there is tons of clean up jobs. The PT Mill gets grants and lot's of hand outs, plus they use 14 Million Gallons of water a day. SURELY there can be a way to create 400 jobs in PT without poisoning us and ruining our quality of life.
Stephanie Ogle of the Washington Department of Ecology gets her deep investigative results from the mill itself.
And she says "Generally speaking, the operations at the mill were normal and the air pollution control equipment was operating within their normal ranges. They did not have any leaks/spills/abnormal releases during that period."
What does "generally" MEAN? This is our precious air. We have a right to clean air. The harassing smell that the PT mill puts out is toxic and annoying. There is no such thing as generally speaking. WE WANT FACTS, and the Clean Air and Water Laws OBEYED. The Washington Department of Ecology is SUPPOSED to make sure the laws are followed and not CODDLE corporations.
What does "normal" and "normal ranges" MEAN?
Normal Ranges is the PROBLEM. The Mill's NORMAL toxic spewing is poisoning us, harassing us, and is in violation of the Clean Air Act. It is wrong, immoral and I believe flat out against the law to put these toxins in our air and water daily. The NORMAL RANGES need to be stopped as they are unconstitutional, unlawful and a complete violation of citizen rights and property rights.
Stephanie Ogle also says;
"While the emissions from the mill are within their normal operations, the weather can have an amplifying affect on the odors that are generated at the facility. It has been hotter and more humid recently and it looks like there are have been some periods of low to no winds, which can also increase the intensity of the odors. This may be why the odors have been worse during the past week.
I will continue to request that they investigate the odor complaints and I will let you know if they do find anything outside of their normal operating ranges."
ENOUGH with the blaming the Weather. JUST Stop the source of the toxins and DO YOUR JOB. Stop mumbling about weather, generally and normally and get STRICT about what is really going on. Protect the people paying your wage. The mill is SERIOUS bad every single day it is operating REGARDLESS of humidity, wind, weather or other mumbo jumbo.
STOP LETTING THE Bad Guys Regulate themselves. STOP calling the perpetrator and asking them if they are committing the alleged crime. INVESTIGATE yourself. Monitor the Air, Obey the Law.
Contact Stephanie Ogle and tell her what you think
Stephanie Ogle, PE
W2R - Industrial Section
360-407-6355
Complain to the Department of Ecology at
Stephanie Ogle at stog461@ecy.wa.gov
Also Complain to the Port Townsend City Manager David Timmons, the Port Townsend Water Manager Ian Jablonski, and the Port Townsend Mayor.
It is the Job of the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County to PROTECT your property rights, constitutional rights, rights to enjoy your property and to not be daily harassed and assaulted by horrible TOXIC odors.
Contact Information for the Above:
250 Madison Street, Suite 2
Port Townsend WA 98368
Phone: 360-379-5047
Fax: 360-385-4290
http://www.cityofpt.us/contactlist.htm
Complain to Ian Jablonski, City of Port Townsend water quality manager , ya know the guy that said to the PT leader that YOU should conserve water. Even though the mill uses 14 MILLION gallons a day. http://www.ptleader.com/news/drought-city-raises-lords-lake-a-second-time-this-year/article_e908d478-19f7-11e5-80cb-13bf9568a566.html
More City of Port Townsend Contact Information
City Council Main:
Position #1 Michelle Sandoval msandoval@cityofpt.us
Position #2 Catharine Robinson crobinson@cityofpt.us
Position #3 Deborah Stinson dstinson@cityofpt.us
Position #4 Robert Gray rgray@cityofpt.us
Position #5 Pamela Adams padams@cityofpt.us
Position #6 - Mayor David King dking@cityofpt.us
Position #7 - Deputy Mayor Kris Nelson knelson@cityofpt.us
The City of Port Townsend can enact LAWS to protect your water, air and soil. Example Below
There Could be a Port Townsend Environmental Bill of Rights Like this City
http://smdp.com/city-council-passes-environmental-bill-of-rights/119705
The Mill and Washington Department of Ecology Refuses to Protect Port Townsend. So complain directly to the City and the County and Get the Mill Out of Our County, or at the least REALLY actually use new technology to clean the air. They are blatantly poisoning and harassing you, with NO transparency and NO accountability.
Complain to Jefferson County Commissioners.
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend,
WA 98368
jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
Phone: 360.385.9100
Link for More Contact Information
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/
Sue the County and the Mill, and the DOE for violations of the Clean Air Act and more cause of actions. Stand up for your Rights. It takes us all to STAND up United.
Complain to the Department of Ecology at
Stephanie Ogle at stog461@ecy.wa.gov
Sue the Port Townsend Paper Mill like the story below
http://www.chillicothegazette.com/story/news/local/2015/06/30/glatfelter-faces-million-lawsuit/29514095/
You can File an attorney general complaint and a Department of Justice Complaint. You don't have to have an attorney to file complaints nor to SUE all of the above. You have RIGHTS. No more settling for hey that's the Smell of MONEY.
The Port Townsend Paper Mill is NO Longer
a Good Fit for the People of Port Townsend, PERIOD.
Also Check Out
Port Townsend Paper Mill Blog by Reverend Crystal Cox
Port Townsend Paper Mill Facebook Page by Reverend Crystal Cox
If you wish to email me, you can email ReverendCrystalCox@Gmail.com. Please note I may publish your email at my discretion and will most likely post all hate, simply for transparency.
YOU have a Constitutional Right to Clean Air. Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend have an Obligation and Duty to Protect Your RIGHTS to Breath Clean AIR.
Shut Down the Port Townsend Paper Mill. Fight Back. You have a Right to have CLEAN AIR. You have PROPERTY Rights, Rights to not be Harassed, and you have rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights to BREATH Clean Air.
Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend have a responsibility to stand up to corporations such as the Port Townsend Paper Mill that are violating your rights.
However, You have to stand up to Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend and to DEMAND that your legal rights are enforced.
Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend must MAKE the Washington Department of Ecology Do their JOB.
STOP Complaining to your Attacker that they are Harming YOU. Complain to Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend. They can and SHOULD enact local laws to PROTECT YOU.
Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend have a responsibility to stand up to corporations such as the Port Townsend Paper Mill that are violating your rights.
However, You have to stand up to Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend and to DEMAND that your legal rights are enforced.
Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend must MAKE the Washington Department of Ecology Do their JOB.
STOP Complaining to your Attacker that they are Harming YOU. Complain to Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend. They can and SHOULD enact local laws to PROTECT YOU.
It is not enough to simply report to the Department of Ecology. Stephanie OGLE and the DOE protect the mill. It is FUTILE to report directly to the assailant's, the Port Townsend Paper Mill, and ask them to stop attacking you.
It is the Job of Law Enforcement, State Agencies, and here mostly the job of Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend to PROTECT your RIGHTS.
It is the Job of Law Enforcement, State Agencies, and here mostly the job of Jefferson County Washington and the City of Port Townsend to PROTECT your RIGHTS.
The Port Townsend Paper Mill is NO Longer
a Good Fit for the People of Port Townsend, PERIOD.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Blogger Defamation Lawsuit; Blogger Rights Ninth Circuit; Supreme Court First Amendment; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC; Writ of Certiorari
Crystal Cox Blogger; Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; First Amendment, Free Speech, Defamation Lawsuit, Shield Laws, Retractions Laws; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox; Supreme Court of the United States Filing;
"The Petitioner is an Activist Litigant making a stand for the rights of all Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers."
"INTRODUCTION
Ninth Circuit Judges; Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.,and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, stated:
Cox asks this court to rule that criminal allegations be redacted from the Obsidian v. Cox Ninth Circuit ruling dated January 17th, 2014.
Is it Lawful for Ninth Circuit Judges to use gossip, hearsay and the rantings of a New York Times Journalist as adjudicated fact, and use this as factual evidence in a Ninth Circuit Ruling?
Is it lawful and within the constitutional rights of a Defendant such as Petitioner, for a panel of judges to use a New York Times article to convict a litigant in a civil trial of a crime of which they have not been adjudicated of?"
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves wrongful, non-adjudicated allegations of criminal conduct made by Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ against Petitioner, Defendant Cox and clearly violating her constitutional rights, human rights, and rights to due process, as a matter of law. ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ Stated that Petitioner Cox; " has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction."
Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right for it to be proven, as a matter of law, "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she is guilty of a crime, before Judges are allowed, by law, to state those allegations in a court ruling, a court opinion.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. There was neither in the Ninth Circuit appeal of Obsidian v. Cox.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Judges must have “Clear and Convincing Proof” beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE they are, by law allowed to state such allegations in a higher court ruling.
Cox was not on trial for crimes or civil matters involving allegations, investigations or even a cause of action regarding posting content or allegations of others online and then seeking a payoff to remove those allegations, (aKa Extortion or Blackmail).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). Yet petitioner Cox was not given due process in the criminal justice system nor has Cox been adjudicated for or even under investigation for the crime of extortion, yet high court judges accused Cox of extortionate behavior in a ruling of a civil case, a defamation case, unrelated in it’s material fact, evidence and testimony to the crime of extortion and to of having “a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”, which is essentially the felony crime of blackmail, or extortion.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government.
Crystal Cox, Free Speech Case fighting to Equal rights of bloggers, Citizen Journalists, Whistleblowers as New York Times, Forbes and other traditional, mainstream media.
To Read the writ of certiorari Filing by Crystal Cox, Pro Se, Click Below
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yBV1MgaxPbjqoYxC3op2241oidez4pEW2WJ2P-Lg8Hk/edit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/204438383/Eugene-Volokh-Motion-to-Rehear-Obsidian-v-Cox
Supreme Court of the United States Filing;
Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731
No. 13-9731
Crystal Cox, Petitioner
v.
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al.
Docketed: April 16, 2014
Lower Court:
United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-35238, 12-35319)
Decision Date: January 17, 2014
Rehearing Denied: March 5, 2014
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Crystal L. Cox P.O. Box 2027
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Party name: Crystal Cox
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-9731.htm
https://certpool.com/dockets/13-9731
http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/
More on Obsidian Finance Group
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox; Supreme Court of the United States Filing;
"The Petitioner is an Activist Litigant making a stand for the rights of all Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers."
Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731
"INTRODUCTION
Petitioner requests this court to issue a ruling that requires the Ninth Circuit to redact criminal allegations of Petitioner in a Ninth Circuit civil court ruling dated January 17th, 2014, Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit Case Number; 12-35319; D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00057- HZ.
This issue is a matter that affects all members of the public.
Ninth Circuit Judges; Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.,and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, stated:
“. Cox apparently has a history of making similar
allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.
See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech, N.Y.
Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. Padrick and Obsidian sent Cox
a cease-and-desist letter, but she continued posting
allegations. This defamation suit ensued.”
Defendant Crystal Cox has no history of posting anything online and seeking a retraction for a payment. This is not based in fact, and has NEVER happened, as the court record clearly shows.
Cox was never “determined” by any court to have posted allegation, then sought a retraction, then continued posting and was sued. This is factually incorrect.
Cox alleges the Ninth Circuit violated her constitutional rights in alleging criminal activity and has stated in error, the events leading up to her defamation suit.
Cox asks this court to rule that criminal allegations be redacted from the Obsidian v. Cox Ninth Circuit ruling dated January 17th, 2014.
Petitioner Cox understands that it is at the sole judicial discretion of this court to hear this matter.
Cox prays that this court will hear this matter as these judicial actions will potentially chill speech and violate the rights of other citizen journalists, whistleblowers and anti-corruption bloggers such as Cox.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner requests this court to decide the following questions:
Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty?
Do Ninth Circuit Judges have the legal authority to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case?
Does Petitioner, Litigants, in a Civil Case have a legal right to due process of law, in cases where Judges RULE that Litigants, such as petitioner have committed crimes of which Petitioner was not on trial for nor was a matter of record in the lower court ?
Do Ninth Circuit Judges have to find a Defendant Guilty of a Crime, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, or to have been Adjudicated of that crime in a U.S Court, BEFORE they rule that a litigant such as petitioner is guilty of this criminal behavior or criminal activities?
Do litigants, such as petitioner, have a Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights
and Due Process of Law Rights that have to be adjudicated for a crime before a Ninth Circuit Judicial Panel can issue an “opinion” in a highly publicized, higher court, esteemed ruling, regarding that alleged crime?
and Due Process of Law Rights that have to be adjudicated for a crime before a Ninth Circuit Judicial Panel can issue an “opinion” in a highly publicized, higher court, esteemed ruling, regarding that alleged crime?
Do Ninth Circuit Judges have a lawful right to use a New York Times article as adjudicated fact and material evidence to issue a ruling that a litigant in a civil case is guilty of criminal activity?
Is it Lawful for Ninth Circuit Judges to use gossip, hearsay and the rantings of a New York Times Journalist as adjudicated fact, and use this as factual evidence in a Ninth Circuit Ruling?
Can the Court of Appeals Prejudice a Litigant with false and defamatory language in a ruling?
Does a litigant have a right to have the language in the ruling challenged or reviewed by an independent Court, (for example, the Supreme or another Appellate Court not involved in the decision with the defamatory and legally abusive language that prejudices the rights of the litigant in rehearing) ?
Does the court have the right to defame and slander litigants and deny due process?
Do judges have the right to convict litigants of crimes in judicial rulings
based on New York Times articles?
Do Judges have a right to deny due process in lower courts by issuing a ruling that convicts litigants of crimes, thereby prejudicing them with a jury of their peers, as they return to have a new trial?
Do judges involved in a slanderous, possibly criminally defamatory statement have a legal and constitutional right to rule on whether they rehear this issue of them acting inappropriately and unlawful in that very ruling?
Is it lawful and within the constitutional rights of a Defendant such as Petitioner, for a panel of judges to use a New York Times article to convict a litigant in a civil trial of a crime of which they have not been adjudicated of?"
" REASONS WHY THIS WRIT SHOULD ISSUE
To establish firm guidelines for all district court, judges and appellate courts that it is not constitutional, ethical nor lawful to render rulings that accuse litigants of criminal activity of which they have not had due process of law in regard to.
To guarantee the rights, liberty, equality, freedom, due process rights, and free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution for all citizens, pro se litigants, anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistleblowers alike.
To guarantee the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of all.
To guarantee the rights of due process and the Bill of Rights to all.
To end extreme prejudice by local, state, and federal judges whom use their power and position to silence, intimidate, suppress speech, bully, paint in false light, slander and defame litigants who expose corruption in the judicial system and of whom they have extreme prejudice in regard to.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Which thereby leads the public at large, media and the lower court in her pending $10 Million dollar Civil Case, to believe that Cox has been under investigation by authorities and found guilty of the crime of extortion or blackmail. As it is ILLEGAL to make allegations and seek a payoff to retract those allegations.
Cox prays this Court orders the Ninth Circuit to redact the above statement.
Petitioner Cox alleges that it is not fair, ethical, equitable in rights, constitutional, nor appropriate as a matter of law and rules of procedure for Ninth Circuit judges or District Court Judges to state unrelated allegations, rumor and speculation in an esteemed higher court ruling, that is published to the world and affects the life of Petitioner forever, as well as affects all whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers like her.
Petitioner Cox alleges that it is an abuse of power and process, and an extreme violation of her human and civil rights, for Judges to use hearsay and rumors as adjudicated fact in an esteemed, higher court process, and to seek revenge, retaliate, and use extreme prejudice against Petitioner and litigants like her by using a prestigious court ruling to paint Petitioner in false light, slander and defame Petitioner and cause her a lifetime of irreparable harm.
Petitioner alleges that it is the duty of Ninth Circuit judges to report anyone they deem a danger to the public. If ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believe Cox to have a history of extortionate or blackmailing conduct, then it is their duty as public servants to order a criminal investigation by the proper authorities and it is NOT their duty, nor legal right to simply, flat out state, that Cox has a history of these criminal actions and thereby defame and slander Cox and put her under extreme prejudice as she heads back to the lower court Pro Se to face a $10 Million dollar civil court proceeding.
Petitioner and bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists like her, face extreme prejudice in the courts, as they are oftentimes exposing judges, attorneys and people in powerful positions such as CEO’s and Politicians.
This court ruling, essentially gives the rights to all Judges at every level of our court system, and essentially all institutional press “traditional journalists” to simply accuse litigants of crimes, activities, or unethical behavior, based on gossip and hearsay of an institutional press journalists such as Kashmir Hill of Forbes or David Carr of the New York Times, and have that be stated in a Ninth Circuit ruling as adjudicated fact.
Petitioner alleges that it violates her constitutional rights and the rights of those who engage in the same online activity as her, for Judges to essentially take “pot shots”, add in gossip and hearsay into a ruling and thereby slander, defame and ruin the life of the litigant.
Especially in cases such as the petitioner where she faces a retrial in a $10 million dollar civil case where she is indigent and cannot afford an attorney and this criminal accusation prejudices her lower court ruling before the trial even begins.
Petitioner alleges that allowing Ninth Circuit judges to state arbitrary allegations and accusations in authoritative higher court opinions, will potentially chill the online speech of all bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists. As they will fear the same thing happening to them.
This is a critical first amendment issue. And a critical issue of due process laws, the fourteenth amendment, civil rights and human rights.
Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right to due process in the criminal justice system and that it violates her constitutional rights for higher court, esteemed judges to rule on matters of her alleged criminal activity BEFORE she has been adjudicated or under investigation by the proper courts and legal procedure in the criminal justice system.
These accusations by Ninth Circuit judges prejudice the litigants such as petitioner in the re-trial at the D.C. level and put them under extreme prejudice in all matters of their life, even things as simple as renting a home or getting a job.
Those researching litigants such as petitioner find a higher court ruling, issued by esteemed judges in a powerful position of which the public at large deems to be of the utmost authority, in which accuses the litigant of criminal activities, of extortionate behavior.
This is a violation of Petitioners rights of due process and constitutional rights, as she now faces extreme prejudice, hate, inequality and duress in all aspects of her life. She is deemed a criminal, when she has not had due process in the criminal justice system. This precedence now makes it so that judges everywhere can do this same thing to essentially punish, retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers.
Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty?
Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right for it to be proven, as a matter of law, "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she is guilty of a crime, before Judges are allowed, by law, to state those allegations in a court ruling, a court opinion.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. There was neither in the Ninth Circuit appeal of Obsidian v. Cox.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Judges must have “Clear and Convincing Proof” beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE they are, by law allowed to state such allegations in a higher court ruling.
Cox was not on trial for crimes or civil matters involving allegations, investigations or even a cause of action regarding posting content or allegations of others online and then seeking a payoff to remove those allegations, (aKa Extortion or Blackmail).
Cox was on trial for defamation, and that this was the only cause of action.
There was no "seeking a payoff" to remove allegations, as a material factor of Obsidian v. Cox nor a factor in this case what so ever, therefore it was not a matter of record and cannot legally be brought into the Ninth Circuit proceeding, and certainly not, as a matter of law and constitutional rights, be stated in a Ninth Circuit court of appeals ruling, opinion.
Petitioner Cox alleges that her Due Process of Law, Fourteenth Amendment Rights, and her rights under the Bill of Rights, have been violated by Judges accusing her of criminal activity in rulings / opinions in civil cases of which these crimes have nothing to do with. Cox alleges this is retaliation for her exposing corruption that involves judges, and people with financial and political power.
Petitioner Cox alleges that she has a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property.
Yet Cox was not given notice of the crimes alleged, nor a way to present her side.
Cox was not given due process, as a matter of law and constitutional rights and Cox has thus lost her life as she knew it, her liberty and has lost personal property in this matter.
The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. Petitioner Cox was not given due process, and was simply ruled guilty of criminal activities, with a New York Times article as material evidence in the matter and was thereby “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). Yet petitioner Cox was not given due process in the criminal justice system nor has Cox been adjudicated for or even under investigation for the crime of extortion, yet high court judges accused Cox of extortionate behavior in a ruling of a civil case, a defamation case, unrelated in it’s material fact, evidence and testimony to the crime of extortion and to of having “a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”, which is essentially the felony crime of blackmail, or extortion.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government.
Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the means whereby the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to protect individuals such as Petitioner from arbitrary actions by state as well as federal governments, which includes the arbitrary actions of an esteemed higher court judicial panel in accusing petition and future litigants like her, of criminal activity of which was not a material factor in her case, and was simply hearsay by a traditional journalist of the institutional press, in this case a New York Time journalist, David Carr.
Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, and in this case there was severe prejudice and inequality and Cox has thereby suffered harm, and wishes this court to remedy this ruling to protect future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself.
Petitioner Cox alleges that, under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and other human rights and civil rights laws, and constitutional amendments, that the actions of these judges deprived her of "fundamental fairness" and of Civil Rights under the Due Process Clause.
And now has the potential to do so to ALL future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself.
And with this gives far reaching, unconstitutional powers to the institutional press and traditional journalists to publish gossip, hearsay and allegations and have Ninth Circuit judges and judges across the land, use these traditional journalists “opinion”, “writings”, “allegations” as adjudicated facts, hard and fast evidence, and sworn testimony that gives them the right to issue opinions and rulings that flat out accuse litigants such as petitioner of criminal activity of which they have not had due process of law in regard to.
The Bill of Rights contains provisions that are central to procedural due process.
These protections give a person a number of rights and freedoms including the right to be told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Petitioner Cox was deprived of these rights, as Judges simply portrayed to the world she was guilty of criminal acts without having due process and without being told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
The Decision of the Ninth Circuit to allow statement of non-adjudicated criminal accusations to be put into a ruling in a civil case, whereby the litigant has not had due process for those allegations is Clearly Incorrect.
Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ erred in stating that Cox had a history of these criminal activities and erred in stating the New York Times as their evidence of fact and material facts of law.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges do not have a lawful, constitutional right to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case.
Petitioner Cox alleges that she was denied a legal right to due process of law in this ruling that slandered and defamed her, and painted her in false light, thereby affecting the rest of her life.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ did not find Cox guilty of these allegations beyond a reasonable doubt nor did they adjudicate Cox, charge Cox with these allegations nor use adjudicated facts in issuing their judicial authority (opinion), (ruling).
And that it was an error to rule that Cox had a history of such criminal actions when Cox was not allowed due process and constitutional rights regarding these allegations.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ violated her Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights and Due Process of Law Rights by alleging Cox committed these criminal actions of which she had not been charged by a lower court nor the criminal justice system, as a matter of law.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ prejudiced her substantial rights, and this was not a harmless error as Cox now faces extreme hate, prejudice, slander and defamation and has a other judicial proceedings that are now prejudiced against her.
If Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believed Cox to have committed theses Criminal acts, they SHOULD go through due process of law. Judges are NOT above the law.
CONCLUSION
I Pray that this esteemed panel, this court, send a clear message to the Ninth Circuit, and essentially all Appellate Judges and all judges across our court system, that it is not ok, not ethical, not constitutional nor lawful to ad lib, make criminal allegations, introduce new case information into the appeal process, slander and defame litigants, and abuse the power of their process and esteemed role to retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists, and anti-corruption bloggers in every town in the United States and essential the world.
The Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit ruling is known well, worldwide and is the most prominent case to date of a blogger making a court rule on whether a blogger has rights equal to a journalist when it comes to the First Amendment, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws and Free Speech Rights.
This is a massive human rights and civil rights issue, as now all who expose corruption and break news, report on what is really happening in small towns, big cities and essential everywhere, have the same rights in the courtroom as does traditional journalists and the institutional press aKa big media.
Therefore it is imperative that this ruling does not be tainted with giving those same traditional journalists of the institutional press, super powers to have that same blogger alienated, outcast, painted in false light, prejudiced in other court proceedings, and have the world at large believe them to be a criminal and therefore not taken serious that in which they are exposing or reporting on.
This ruling that gave equality, seemed to have took it away in the very same ruling.
Petition Cox has NEVER, not even once in her life, posted anything online with the intention of seeking a payment for a retraction.
Cox has NEVER asked for money to remove anything she has posted online, and yet Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ are claiming, in a Ninth Circuit ruling that Cox has a “History” of doing such actions, seriously criminal, unconstitutional and unethical action.
As if Cox has a pattern and history of illegal, unethical behavior, of which there is NO History or Pattern. If these judges are allowed to put these unsubstantiated, unadjudicated, extremely biased and prejudice criminal allegations into a ruling in a civil case, then this will chill the speech of those in the future wishing to, wanting, or trying to expose corruption in their area of expertise, town, or state.
In Truth Petitioner Cox has dedicated her life, lost everything and been under extreme threats, retaliation, and extreme prejudice for nearly a decade, all because she did the right thing and stood up for others, for strangers and used her internet marketing skills to give voice to the victims of corrupt detectives, county commissioners, judges, cops, politicians, real estate companies, banks, finance companies, and victims of human trafficking, pedophilia, rape, and severe abuse.
Cox was RULED guilty of a crime of which she was not on trial for, was not adjudicated for and was not under investigation for. A crime that was NOT a material factor in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox.
It is not legal, due process, nor constitutional for these judges to have stated these false, unadjudicated allegations.
Petitioner respectfully request that the Ninth Circuit Court amend its opinion to withhold the sentence that now says, Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech , N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1.
A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” could be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court. But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process.
The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Adding this statement to the Obsidian v. Cox ruling dated January 17th, 2014 is Legally Flawed and Has Far-Reaching Consequences, and is thereby Warranting Review in This Case.
This issue affects all who are reporting news, all citizen journalists, all victims of corruption at every level and all whistleblowers.
If a Ninth Circuit panel can rule that any individual has committed crimes without that person having been investigated or given due process for those allegations, and use a New York Times article as evidence of those crimes, then this potentially affects every citizen in the United States and is a very important issue for all lawmakers, citizens, and the judicial process as a whole.
The Court should grant the petition. "
Source of Crystal Cox Blogger Supreme Court Filing
To Read the writ of certiorari Filing by Crystal Cox, Pro Se, Click Below
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yBV1MgaxPbjqoYxC3op2241oidez4pEW2WJ2P-Lg8Hk/edit
UCLA, Law Professor, Attorney Eugene Volokh
Motion to Rehear Click Below
http://www.scribd.com/doc/204438383/Eugene-Volokh-Motion-to-Rehear-Obsidian-v-Cox
Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox;
Supreme Court of the United States Filing;
Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731
No. 13-9731
Crystal Cox, Petitioner
v.Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al.
Docketed: April 16, 2014
Lower Court:
United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-35238, 12-35319)
Decision Date: January 17, 2014
Rehearing Denied: March 5, 2014
Apr 8 2014 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.
(Response due May 16, 2014)
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Crystal L. Cox P.O. Box 2027
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Party name: Crystal Cox
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-9731.htm
Crystal Cox on Why she Filed Motion to Rehear in the Ninth Circuit
(Playlist of 2, Audio OnlyCrystal Cox on Motion to Rehear)
Crystal Cox, Obsidian v. Cox Update March 12th, 2014
How Extortion Entered into the Obsidian Finance v. Crystal Cox Case,
and a bit about the Summit Bankruptcy Case
Other Links for Updates
https://certpool.com/dockets/13-9731
Crystal Cox First Amendment Case
More on the Crystal Cox Blogger; Crystal Cox First Amendment Case,
Equality of Bloggers; Ninth Circuit Appeals WIN for ALL Citizen Journalists,
Anti-Corruption Bloggers, and Whistleblowers
http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari;
Supreme Court of the United States Filing;
Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731
First Amendment, Free Speech, Defamation Lawsuit, Shield Laws, Retractions Laws; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731; Crystal Cox Blogger; Petition for a Writ of Certiorari;
First Amendment, Free Speech, Defamation Lawsuit, Shield Laws, Retractions Laws; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731; Crystal Cox Blogger; Petition for a Writ of Certiorari;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)