New Pro Bono Case on Whether First Amendment Libel Rules Are Limited to Institutional Media Defendants

By Eugene Volokh

December 23, 2011

I’m pleased to report that our local counsel, Benjamin Souede of Angeli Law Group LLC [ http://angelilaw.com/professionals/benjamin-souede/ ], and I will be representing the defendant blogger in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox (D. Or.) [ http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10377762955466572966 ]; we will be filing a motion for new trial, and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit if the motion is denied.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) [ http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7102507483896624202 ] held that even private-figure libel plaintiffs (1) may not recover proven compensatory damages unless the defendant was at least negligent in its investigation, and (2) may not recover presumed or punitive damages unless the defendant knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded a known and substantial risk that the statements were false. The District Court in Obsidian Finance held that the defendant was not entitled to the protection of Gertz, because she was not a member of the “media.” But as I’ve argued in my forthcoming University of Pennsylvania Law Review article, Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology? From the Framing to Today [ http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/press.pdf ], the First Amendment has historically been understood as protecting people who use mass communications technology equally, whether or not they are members of the institutional media. I much look forward to litigating this case, and, I hope, getting the District Court decision reversed.

2:39 pm

By Nick M.

December 24, 2011

Prof Volokh,

Are you arguing to get just the reward overturned, or that her comments were not false or made with reckless disregard?

1:44 am

By Anonymous Insider

December 25, 2011

Crystal Cox was negligent in her investigation. Cox wrote in late 2009:

“My Blog on Obsidian Finance is based mostly on what I learned through reading Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung’s Blog after it was brought to my attention by a disgruntled party.”

Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung was a biased observer.

12:15 am

By Crystal L. Cox

December 26, 2011

Re: Nick M and Others

I just want to say for clarification, I never refused to divulge a source. I brought over 500 documents to court to show the source of my posted and it was determined hearsay because the judge said my state of mind was not a factor, nor was where I got the information. The Judge told the jury that whether I had actual malice or not was NOT a factor.

Also please note that I wanted Oregon Retraction laws to apply to me. Therefore Plaintiff would have had to ask me to change or remove that post and they never even asked.

Also, the Plaintiff was deemed a non-public figure which I totally disagree with as well, this also affects the law and jury instructions on this case.

Also please consider getting the information from Stephanie DeYoung’s blog originally is NOT as biased as you may think in the Anonymous post above. Stephanie DeYoung’s blog was based on a Judicial Proceeding, an Objection to the Fees filled by several parties against Kevin Padrick Plaintiff, and his Attorney David Aman Tonkon Torp. This objection to the fees had insider emails, tax documents, LLC documents, depositions, videos, court recordings, and more and was not just the opinion of one woman. The story is much bigger then that.

Stephanie’s blog also had videos of a meeting that the Plaintiff had with Summit, as the Plaintiff worked for Summit BEFORE they filed contract and in a breach of that contract was then the Trustee. The story is much bigger then what other blogs are saying. They are not looking into the documents, the facts and are simply grabbing what aspect affects them or they have a strong opinion on. The real facts of the case are in the documents that were on Stephanie DeYoung’s blog, and are now on my blogs.

Respectfully,

Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger

3:33 pm