Blogger Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations; Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations; Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK Against Extortion Allegations in Judicial Ruling

  PORT TOWNSEND, Wash. - Feb. 2, 2014 - PRLog -- Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK, against Federal Appellate Judges Stating;

“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations
and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction”

Cox has not been found guilty by a court of law, had a formal investigation nor any kind of due process on extortion allegations. Therefore an esteemed, highly "reliable source" such as a 3 Judges on an Appellate Panel, should not make allegations of speculated crimes of the Defendant, especially quoting a New York Times journalist as the source of said opinion, or allegations.

I have NO ISSUE with those Speaking Critical of Me, that is your Constitutional Right.

I do not care about being personally Criticized,
I care about
Judges obeying the Law and obeying the
Constitution of the United States of Amerca.

It is one thing for a journalist and a blogger to have equal rights in reporting the news, this is important. However when corruption stories are told or "broke" by these outlets, the authorities then need to perform a formal investigation before a judicial ruling makes those same allegations, as a MATTER OF LAW and Legal Precedent.

I Don't Care Who Likes Me and Who Does Not.

I care about our Judges obeying the Law,
and Respecting our Constitutional Rights.

Crystal Cox via her attorney Eugene Volokh, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor filed a Motion to Rehear / A motion to REDACT the allegations against Cox that are hearsay and rumor maliciously reported by New York Times Journalist David Carr.

To Read this Motion; Click Below

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit

A Few Quotes from Eugene Volokh's Motion to Rehear (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit);

"A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” might 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 civil justice 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."

Link to "Motion to Rehear" Filed by Eugene Volokh;
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit?usp=sharing

Crystal L. Cox, Online Statement regarding and in support of the Motion to Rehear, to Clarify or Redact Courts statement, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction” and the surrounding media and corruption.

Click Below
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit