Jason Victor Serinus of Port Townsend Washington Calls out Police Chief Tom Olson for Endangering Us at the #LetJulieSwim Press Conference by Amy Sousa.

 

Jason Victor Serinus eMail to City Manager John Mauro

Subject: Re: Chief Thomas Olson"s comments to the PDN

Date: Friday, August 26, 2022

Hi John,

I’m running late on a CD review whose deadline I missed, but I’ve been trying to piece

together what I know of the timeline. I must send this and then disengage from email so I can

do my work.

I first wrote the Chief on August 8 about security concerns at the Aug. 15 CC meeting, which

many feared would be filled with Jaman and Sousa supporters, and perhaps with Proud Boys in the wings. (THEY WERE THE VIOLENT ONES ALL ALONG, INCITING FEAR AND PANIC, MISINFORMATION VIOLENCE)

 I Cc’d City Council members. I sent a second email about security for pro-trans

speakers at the CC meeting on the 11th. (WHY WOULD THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE A SIDE, WHY NOT DIGNITY AND SAFETY FOR ALL?)

(WHY DID OLSON CALL JASON, WHY DID THE POLICE AND CITY DISCRIMINATE AND CHOOSE A SIDE, AND NOT DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS, SAFETY FOR ALL. WHY THIS GUY GETS A CALL AND NOT AMY OR JULIE ON THESE MATTERS)

Then I spoke with the Chief by phone on the 12th - he called me while I working out at PTAC - and learned of his plan to admit people from both Amy’s side and Beau’s side to the August 15 meeting. (That, thankfully, did not happen.)  (THEY DENIED US DUE PROCESS BY VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, BULLYING AND PHYSICALLY STOPPING US FROM SPEAKING AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING)

When we spoke then, I asked him how he planned to handle potential Proud Boy presence,

and was told that from his experience, they wouldn’t act unless provoked (to which I said to

myself… which means they very may well act, because no one can control who shows up at

the rally.)  THERE WAS NO PROUD BOYS, AMY WAS A LIBERAL, JULIE A LIBERAL TO MY KNOWLEDGE. JUST BECAUSE ALL MEDIA PICKED UP THE STORY DOES NOT MAKE JULIE AND AMY SUDDENLY CONSERVATIVE. JASON AND OTHERS SPREAD SO MANY LIES THAT INCITED VIOLENCE ON AN 80 YEAR OLD WOMAN, AND THE REST OF US. THERE WAS NO HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITY, DIGNITY OF SAFETY. THEY ATTACKED US, SOUNDS LIKE THEY WERE AFRAID OF BEING ATTACKED SO THEY ATTACKED?? WHAT?

I also asked if he planned to ask the Sheriff’s department for support, and was told

“No". I would think I discussed the rally at that time, but I won’t swear to that in a court of

law. Hey, I was catching my breath from my workout and sitting on the steps to the gym’s

second floor so I wouldn’t disturb other folks in the gym.

So the question, when were Thomas and the City first aware of the rally? I haven’t done a

public records request, but the day Amy Sousa applied to the City of PT for a rally permit

would be the day (unless he was monitoring her online.) She certainly announced her plans for

the rally as early as August 11. on the Dori Monson Show 

So, that’s four days notice, not 2.5 days, for Amy’s rally. And concerns for safety inside and outside the August 15 CC meeting had been expressed well before that.

Please excuse if I don’t respond further until Monday. I’ve got to head to the music room and

then walk the Three Rabid Terrorers of Bell St.

Thanks so much,

Jason

On Aug 26, 2022, at 1:17 PM, John Mauro <JMauro@cityofpt.us> wrote:

A blind eye to what, Jason?

John Mauro | City Manager

From: Jason Victor Serinus <serinusjv@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 1:09 PM

To: John Mauro <JMauro@cityofpt.us>

Subject: Re: Chief Thomas Olson's comments to the PDN

Thanks John.

I wrote my note before the Leader’s latest interview with the Chief. He now says in

print that he only had 2.5 days to prepare.  Really? My, how time flies. It is impossible to turn a blind eye to this. 

Jason

On Aug 26, 2022, at 6:52 AM, 

John Mauro <JMauro@cityofpt.us> wrote:

Thanks, Jason. I appreciate you passing this along. It’s easy to criticize the

police for too much intervention or not enough but I’ll let the facts of the

event tell the story. 

We also take any lessons learned into the future as we determine how to balance people’s right to free speech in a public area with ensuring public safety.

Best wishes,

John

John Mauro | City Manager

THE FUTURE JOHN, WE WERE HARMED, ASSAULTED AND HAVE ONGOING ASSAULTS IN PUBLIC AND ONLINE, AND ONGOING PTSD. YOU ARE GOING TO LEARN A LESSON FOR THE FUTURE BUT NOT ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT HAPPENED? YOU HAVE NOT LEARNED YOUR LESSON.  FIRST YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, TO START WITH YOU CHOOSING SIDES FROM DAY ONE WITH NO INVESTIGATION AND WITH COMPLETE PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION.

From: Jason Victor Serinus <serinusjv@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 7:38 PM

To: John Mauro <JMauro@cityofpt.us>

Subject: Chief Thomas Olson's comments to the PDN

HI John,

I sent this to City Council members on August 22. I’ve since learned that

you’re the person who interacts with the Chief. Hence I send it to you as

well.

Hope you saw my letter in this week’s Leader.

Thanks so much,

Jason

Dear City Councilmembers,

My thoughts will come as no surprise to those of you who communicated

with Police Chief Thomas Olson about the August 15 events in advance of

and on the day of the rally and Proclamation presentation.

MANY ON BOTH SIDES COMMUNICATED WITH OLSON. HE DID NOTHING TO SEPARATE THE 2 GROUPS AND ENDANGERED US ALL. 

I spoke with Thomas multiple times. When we spoke on the afternoon of

August 15, he kindly clarified for me (and everyone else who had begun to

line up to speak at the meeting) where we would enter and how we

should line up. I shared that information with others, and ended up first in

line on the steps of City Hall.

I watched as people gathered across the street from City Hall, began to

chant, etc. I also witnessed one anti-trans protestor who came over to our

side of the street to plead with police to intervene after shoving had

commenced. As dramatic as she may have been, I have realized in

retrospect that there was due cause for concern. Yet the police I saw

were very slow to enter the crowd.

FIRST OF ALL WE WERE NOT ANTI-TRANS JASON. WE WERE SIMPLY INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING OUR THOUGHTS AND BELIEFS ON AN IMPORTANT LOCAL MATTER. WE WERE BEING ASSAULTED.  THIS EMAIL SHOWS THAT IT WAS OBVIOUS WE WERE BEING ATTACKED AND OBVIOUS THAT THE POLICE DID NOTHING. 

I am incredulous that the Chief says that the Port Townsend Police

Department lacked sufficient time to prepare for the August 15 protest. I

cannot be the only citizen aside from Council members and Sousa who

spoke with him and questioned if there would be adequate protection. 

I specifically asked if he had asked the Sheriff’s Department for assistance.

The Chief was fully aware that anyone could attend the event. He must be

aware that the continued protests in Portland turned violent, not because

of peaceful demonstrators, but because of the black-masked few who

infiltrated demonstrations and acted out against police and property. 

He must have seen the black masked people who showed up in the

afternoon as the rally was about to begin. 

Yet he told Peter Segall at the PDN, “Our primary focus and goal at an event like this is life, safety and property. We can’t do that when my officers are intermingling in a

Crowd.”

How does ensure safety when one stands at arms length from those who

need safety? This event didn’t call for police intermingling; it called for

clear boundaries. 

Why wasn’t a safety line of sorts established between demonstrators and counter-demonstrators? After all, there were Proud Boys present.

I DID NOT SEE ANY PROUD BOYS. JULIE AND AMY WERE LIBERALS AS FAR AS I KNEW. THERE WAS COMMON SENSE CONSERVATIVE FILMING, WHERE WERE THE PROUD BOYS THAT NIGHT? TO MY KNOWLEDGE NONE WERE THERE. 

The afternoon rally could have turned into a major melee. While we’re

lucky it didn’t, the documented skirmishes that occurred have given

strength to those who would use trans rights, LGBTQ rights, and human

rights to divide the electorate. That in addition to the death threats and

More.

I respect and am grateful for a police presence. I am grateful that Thomas

was present for my calls and responded to community concerns. But I

remain unconvinced by his explanation.

jason victor serinus

Source of Public Records eMail

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RgJTWKQw9rAgCmvIw5xWFSR-6bXRpRY5/view?usp=sharing

Biological Computing

 What is Biological Computing And How It Will Change Our World

"When you look at the origin of the word computer—“one who calculates”—you learn electronics aren’t necessarily a required component even though most of us would imagine the modern-day desktop or laptop when we hear the term. A computer is something that can handle data, and in this perspective, our brains are one of the most powerful computers that exist. There has been significant progress toward the creation of biological computers. Once they get perfected, it will change our world. 

What are biological computers?

Biological computers are made from living cells. Instead of electrical wiring and signaling, biological computers use chemical inputs and other biologically derived molecules such as proteins and DNA. Just like a desktop computer, these organic computers can respond to data and process it, albeit in a rudimentary manner similar to the capabilities of computers circa 1920. While biological computers have a long way to go before they are as sophisticated as today’s personal computers, the fact that researchers have been able to get biological computers to complete a logic gate is a notable achievement.

Potential of biological computers

Once you’ve programmed a single biological cell, it’s extremely cost-effective to grow billions more with only the cost of the nutrient solutions and a lab tech’s time. It’s also anticipated that biocomputers might actually be more reliable than their electronic counterparts. To illustrate, think about how our bodies still survive even though millions of our cells die off, but a computer built from wires can stop functioning if one wire is severed. In addition, every cell has a mini-factory at its disposal, so once it’s been programmed, it can synthesize any biological chemical. 

Instead of what’s done today when bioengineers map genes and try to uncover their secrets, they can just program cells to do the job they need them to do — for example, program cells to fight cancer or deliver insulin to a diabetic’s bloodstream.

Challenges of biocomputing

Although biocomputing has similarities with biology and computer science, it doesn’t fit seamlessly with either one. In biology, the goal is to reverse engineer things that have already been built. Biocomputing aims to forward engineer biology.

Experts in computer science are accustomed to machines executing programmed commands; when dealing with biological environments in what is known as a “wet lab,” organisms might react unpredictably. The culprit could be the cell’s programming, or it could easily be something external such as the environmental conditions, nutrition, or timing."

Source and Full Article

https://bernardmarr.com/what-is-biological-computing-and-how-it-will-change-our-world/

Jefferson County Port Townsend Washington Prosecuting Attorney James Kennedy MOCKS Judge Mindy Walker and Flat Out Admits to DEFYING an Official Judicial Court Order.

If it is oK for the Port Townsend City Attorney, Port Townsend Police, Prosecutor Melissa Pleimann, Prosecuting Attorney James Kennedy and then prosecuting attorney Julie St. Marie to DEFY a Court Order then why bother having a court at all? Why bother having a Judge if the Judges order can be flat out IGNORED by the City Officials with no remorse or accountability?

Proof that Prosecutor James Kennedy knew the Court Ordered that MOSES be returned to Michael Allmain and they deliberately willfully maliciously defied this court order to please the lynch mob that went after Michael Allmain for years.

Prosecuting Attorney James Kennedy KNEW and admitted that the Court Ordered Moses be returned in March of 2021, yet CVAR defied the court order and charged Michael Allmain for those CVAR service too. Sued him and won $28,000 Judgment and got his dog.  

Kennedy eMail regarding his knowledge of the Court Order to return Michael Allmain's property and Mocking a Jefferson County Judge, Seen Below.

“until 3/12/21 based on when the court order that the dog be released back to Mr. Allmain (still unbelievable)”

That is Prosecuting Attorney Kennedy ADMITTING that the Court Ordered that Mr. Allmain’s dog was released back to him, yet it NEVER happened. 

Click Below to Read FOI eMail
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i9haiD1UTvDbqxmFKlU22Wr6QgpsMY1m/view?usp=sharing

They ALL Knowingly Maliciously DEFIED a court order to return Michael Allmains personal property. I filed criminal charges, bar complaints, a complaint against the judge, complaints against CVAR, vet complaints, and charges against one of the deputies, I went unheard. Because in Jefferson County Washington it is MOB RULE. And they choose who gets the benefit of the laws to protect and who does not. They selectively prosecute who they don’t like for whatever reason of the day. 

 Jefferson County Washington Prosecuting Attorney James Kennedy used a Civil Proceeding to Get the VERDICT he wanted in a Criminal Case.  It is my Opinion that it is Flat out Illegal, a CRIME Port Townsend Courts, Trial, Fraud, Corruption, Lynch Mob setting up and prosecuting a local homeless man. 

Vigilante Style Justice Port Townsend Washington Corrupt Officials Flat Out Defies Judges Court Order and Mocks her for making the Official Judicial Ruling.

Corrupt, Lawless, Prosecuting Attorney James Kennedy

In this Post we see James Kennedy, Port Townsend, Jefferson County Washington Prosecuting Attorney, admitting to Judge Mindy Walker that he knows what CVAR was up to all along and they only have the lien case in Civil Court in case Michael Allmain was NOT charged in Criminal Court. This is Fraud on the Court, I Allege. This is Abuse of Process. Taking Justice into your Own Hands regardless of what the Judge Says. Abuse of Process, Fraud on the Courts. Theft of a Valuable Wolf Dog and Emotional Support Animal.

8-12-2021 Port Townsend Prosecutor James Kennedy Puts on the RECORD that, Center Valley Animal Rescue, CVAR Used the threat of a lien and then a declaratory judgment THEN an Actually Lien to ENSURE the JUSTICE they personally wanted in a Jefferson County Washington Criminal Case.

Watch the Video Court Transcript Below, as you hear Prosecutor James Kennedy Say “In Case this Criminal Case did NOT Result in a Conviction”.

I Allege this is a CRIME in an of Itself. To ME this is NOT OK, nor LEGAL.

Click Below to Watch

https://rumble.com/vosd8g-prosecuting-attorney-james-kennedy-puts-on-the-record-cvars-vigilante-justi.html

The Full Michael Allmain Case Chronology

https://MichaelAllmainCaseChronology.blogspot.com/

ABOVE THE LAW THUG PROSECUTOR JAMES KENNEDY

Port Townsend James Kennedy Blog Expose by Reverend Crystal Cox

https://AttorneyJamesKennedy.blogspot.com/

Port Townsend Councilman Ben Thomas Comments "off the record" to Katie Daviscourt of Rebel News Enquiry for Comment from Mayor David Faber. Councilman Thomas wishes Julie Jaman would have handled the "situation" different, and defends Mayor Fabor's Twitter and his Support of the Violent Mob that Attacked Us. Oh and the Speaker he gave a Hug to in Tears telling him that women were already being attacked, that was me.

 They KNEW there would be Violence, yet let a 400 person mob attack us, around 20 of us, mostly elderly.  Ben Knew the Violence was already happening, all they had to do was put fencing between us, they stood there and let us be attacked, all the while, KNOWING it would and was Happening. 

Councilman Ben Thomas "hated" that we were being attacked, YET did NOTHING?

We did not Not Send the hateful emails BEN. We were not anti Trans. And over half the speakers were of the PRIDE family. We had a right to speak and not be beat down. yet BEN ONLY feels for the trans community, they matter more.  We had a right to Speak and not have a violent mob attack BEN.

BEN seems to think that Trans Women (with the strength of a man) should be protected from Elderly woman? WTF? We were not there to be violent in any way. They were violent, they were Antifa all in black, they hit us, put us to the ground, hit us with bikes, wrapped flags around our heads, pinned us to the ground and the wall. They were young strong individuals, men, women and we were all over 50 women and 80 year old women. And the Trans community is Ben's ONLY Concern. Makes me sick to my stomach, THIS IS NOT OK by any sense of the Moral Compass or the LAW. 

Email from Katie Daviscourt to Mayor David Fabor

From: Katelyn Daviscourt <katelyn.daviscourt@rebelnews.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 6:00 PM

To: City Council <citycouncil@cityofpt.us>

Subject: Media outlet looking for comment

Hi Mayor Faber,

My name is Katie Daviscourt and I am a journalist with Rebel News. I am working on an

article surrounding Julie Jaman and would like your side of the story.

I am specifically asking for comment on this tweet:

https://twitter.com/davidjfaber/status/1559420621896814593?s=21&t=mJbf1hx9JpdvVz1np0sPmg

Why you responded the way you did and expressed support for the group that mobbed the women’s rights activists?

Best,

Katie Daviscourt

Rebel News

ANSWER FROM COUNCILMAN BEN THOMAS

"From: Ben Thomas

To: Katelyn Daviscourt

Subject: Re: Media outlet looking for comment

Date: Friday, September 2, 2022 7:55:25 AM

Katelyn,

It's way out of my lane to respond to your email since it was addressed to the mayor and his specific tweet. But since I believe he's out of town and may not have been following Rebel New's coverage of this situation as I have, I at least wanted to clear up an understandable misunderstanding that resulted from David's tweet.

I'm intending this to be off the record, but since this email is part of the written public record, I realize I can't depend on that.

I feel confident in saying that David's tweet was in reference to the council meeting itself, not the demonstrations outside.

 It was a really moving meeting in terms of the residents who spoke and the vibe in the air. According to my memory, there was very little negativity toward Julie or Amy or the others who came to speak.

I personally feel the usage of the term "TERF" in the tweet is unfortunate, but I'm not the word police.

As for what happened outside, I have my own opinions about what happened that might not

be shared with other councilors.


We were encouraged to stay in City Hall so as not to endanger ourselves or compromise the efforts of the police force. This was in the context of swirling rumors of potential violence. 

I was the only one who decided it was more important to see it first hand and, after checking in with the police chief, went out there to see for myself. So I'm very sympathetic to the complaints of the group who were trying to have a press conference.

I even gave a hug to one of the speakers who came up to me in tears. 

I really hated seeing how they were treated. There's nothing like seeing something in person

before one judges. And now we have people all over the world judging what's going on in our little town very out of context. I wish that judgement would be tempered better by that

acknowledgement.

Personally, I have complicated feelings about this situation.

I have many transgender friends and a transgender family member, and have been very disturbed by the ranting, hateful emails we've been receiving from around the world. Fairly or not, I think those emails might be influencing our collective response to the situation. I also believe strongly in free speech and in letting people talk, so I very much do not condone the shutting down and intimidation of the press conference that Amy Sousa organized.

Honestly, I wish Julie would have handled the initial situation better, though I'm sympathetic of "mama bear" instincts and really have no place as a man casting judgement. I will say that a similar feeling of protection has welled up in many of us on the Council to protect transgender people in general, whom many of us feel are in a particularly vulnerable spot in society, hence the proclamation. I'd like to think we can defend transgender people without ostracizing Julie or anyone else who may have concerns about a specific situation.

Ben

Port Townsend City Council, position 1

250 Madison Street

Port Townsend, WA 98368

(360) 531-2211 (mobile)"

Link to Source FOI eMail

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q5957lk--nIznztNFZHB_ziunpXRWfFf/view?usp=sharing

More FOI from the Michael Allman Case. Today we See an Email from November 29th, 2021 whereby Port Townsend City Attorney Heidi Greenwood eMails Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft

 And Notifies him of the Crimes Committed in the Allmain Case. She forwarded my eMail with the Chronology of Events showing what a Local Non-Profit and members of the Jefferson County Government and Law Enforcement Really Did. 

Prosecutor Ashcraft says it is Fiction. If So then I Say, I should be Arrested for all manner of Fraud and Forgery. 

The Michael Allmain Case Chronology I compiled from FOI Emails, Personal Experience and Testimony, Court Transcripts, Court Filings, News Outlets, and more, has Real Crimes Throughout. 

We see from the beginning Deputies lying to Michael Allmain, false impound notice, tons of calls from the public to harass Michael, not following law or protocol, we see Officer Wendy Davis setting up Michael Allmain, we see members of the public stalking and harassing Michael, we see prosecuting attorney Julie St. Marie working with Sara Penhallegon of Center Valley Animal Rescue to steal a homeless man's dog (private property), premeditated. I have shown the premeditation through Facebook Threads.

We see City Attorney Heidi Greenwood, Prosecuting Attorney James Kennedy, Attorney Adam Karp, Sara Penhallegon of Center Valley Animal Rescue, and Officer Wendy Davis acknowledging that a Jefferson County Judge, Judge Mindy Walker ORDERED, via a Legal Document a Judicial Court Order to return Michael Allmain’s property to him (his dog Moses) and this bunch defied a court order.

Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft knew, and if not at the time then he knew through the email linked below forwarded to him by the City Attorney. It was all right there in my years worth of evidence he summed up in one sentence to City Attorney Heidi Greenwood. 

“Thanks. We knew this was out there. If people saw the pictures they would immediately see this is all fiction.”

Over a 100 pages of evidence of what Law Enforcement, his prosecuting attorneys, the public, and a local non-profit did and it's all cool cuz ya look at the pictures?  Which ones? The ones after a man had an accident with a dog? Or the chronic skin condition?

Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft did not even look at the Evidence. 

It was proven at trial that Michael Allmain’s dog Moses had a condition that was not able to be cured. It is all right there in the video and text trial transcript.

All the People, Government Agencies and Police involved spent years and well over a hundred thousand dollars, over 60k on legal expenses alone. They could have helped the Dog and kept the dog with his owner. They broke all kinds of laws and ethics violations. I emailed them all last November a Chronology of Events with a whole lot of proof that laws were broken at every level. 

They should have charged those involved, and cared about the laws and protocol violations, instead they simply discounted me. I am the Lady of The Untruth, and all that FOI, those emails, and documents of Evidence were “Fiction” says Chris Ashcraft Prosecuting Attorney Jefferson County Washington, all you have to do to know that those hundreds of pages of evidence are Fiction is look at the picture, presumably of the dog, but when?

Folks these guys are VERY corrupt, and ya it may be some dog, maybe you believe the dog needed to be taken and the man needed criminal charges and huge fines, however, it is clear from this chronology, these emails, the court transcripts, the long list of evidence that these guys got the prosecution they want through nefarious and illegal means, they DEFIED a Court Order and mocked the Judge for issuing it, and in no way did they get that dog or that prosecution by following the law, and it is clear they are above the law. This is How they Do it, and not just to “this guy”, whether you like or believe him or not.  They do it to Whoever they want for whatever reason they want. 

City Attorney Heidi Greenwood forwarded this email to Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft, he says that my Chronology is Fiction all you have to do is look at the pictures.  Yes, See I made up emails from Officers, I made up the impound Notice, and WOW I completely Forged a Judicial Order to Return Moses to Michael, All Fiction, if so I certainly should be in Jail. Right? I made up a Judge Order? I faked all those officer emails, prosecuting attorney emails? If all Fiction, Why Am I not in Jail Chris Ashcraft?  You may want to look into some criminal charges for me, maybe forgery or falsifying legal documents, emails and court orders. 

Yes photos of a Wolf Dog with a chronic skin condition.  A list with FOI evidence, trial transcripts, court orders NOT followed, and Jefferson County Prosecutor Ashcraft sums it all up with one word “Fiction”.

Anyway, Here is the eMail Response from Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft to Port Townsend City Attorney Heidi Greenwood regarding my Timeline Evidence of Crimes that Really Happened. 

They Do not CARE about the Law Folks.  To them it is all about their own Emotions, who they like, who they value, who is worth persecuting and prosecuting and who is worth turning the other way. The Michael Allmain Case Chronology is CLEAR, Laws were broken, if that’s all Good to ya, then you or someone you do care about is next.

Click Below to Read the “Fiction” email from Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hvp-7eg6vvFwNl7VyQKyAUdBQI0LKP1-/view?usp=sharing

To Read the Full Michael Allmain Case Chronology Click Below

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dt44DsV3Tp9Gg3Sx34rEHuHCJAyOIHBABloddPlnzY8/edit?usp=sharing

Hero Dictionary: Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox - Wikipedia. Reverend Crystal Cox Port Townsend Washington Landmark, First of it's Kind Free Speech Case.

 "Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. 

Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. 

The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found ONE single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. 

This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws,

[1] although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee.

[2] In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee.

[3] It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.[3]

Background

Obsidian Finance Group is a financial advisory firm which was managing the bankruptcy of Summit 1031, a real estate company. Crystal Cox is a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" who maintained the blogs obsidianfinancesucks.com, summit1031sucks.com, and bankruptcycorruption.com, amongst various others. 

On her blogs, Cox accused Obsidian and its co-founder Kevin Padrick of committing tax fraud, paying off the media and politicians, intimidating and threatening whistleblowers, and engaging in various other illegal activities in their handling of the bankruptcy. Cox repeatedly claimed that her investigations would expose Obsidian and Padrick's corruption. 

In response, Obsidian and Padrick brought suit against Cox for defamation, asserting that all of Cox's claims were false and damaging Padrick's reputation.[4][5]

Procedural History

The court initially intended to dismiss the defamation claims against Cox. To establish a defamation claim, the alleged defamatory material must be asserting a fact that can be proven true or false, as opposed to merely stating an opinion. 

The court held that even though Cox's allegations of fraud and corruption are technically assertions of fact, they appeared on obviously biased blogs and Cox made no attempt to provide supporting evidence.

The court ruled that in the context of Cox's ranting, hyperbolic blog posts, the allegations are unlikely to be taken as fact by any of her audience. As a result, the court held that Cox's right to voice her opinions was protected by the First Amendment and that her statements could not be considered defamation.[4]

However, after plaintiffs submitted additional blog posts for review, the court found one post to be more factual in tone and content than the others. 

The post delved into the details of Summit's bankruptcy filing and tax liability, and made specific accusations against Obsidian and Padrick for lying on tax filings and stealing money. The court allowed the defamation claim on this one particular post to move forward.[5]

A trial was held on November 29, 2011, and the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding Obsidian and Padrick $2.5 million in damages.[6][7]

Opinion of the Court

After the trial, on November 30, 2011, the court issued an opinion clarifying some of its pre-trial oral rulings.[6]

Oregon's shield and retraction statutes

Cox had claimed that her allegations against Obsidian and Padrick were based on evidence from a secret source, and she refused to name her source citing media shield protection.[1] Under Oregon's media shield laws, any person involved with a "medium of communication to the public" did not have to reveal the source of their information, where "medium of communication" is defined as "including but not limited to" a list of traditional modes of media such as newspapers, magazines, television, and so on.[8] 

The court did not specifically decline to interpret the statutes to include bloggers as "media", rather holding that based on the facts of the case, Cox was not affiliated with any of the enumerated mediums, had no indicia of reliability as a journalist, and thus she did not qualify for the media shield laws.[6]

Additionally, the court held that even if Cox could be considered "media", she would still not qualify. Oregon's media shield does not apply in a civil defamation lawsuit, where the defendant has asserted "a defense based on the[...] source of allegedly defamatory information."[6][8]

Cox also tried to assert immunity under Oregon's retraction statutes, which state that general damages for defamation could only be awarded if the plaintiffs had sought a retraction, which Padrick had not. 

The court again held that Cox did not qualify because her blogs and practices did not fall under any of the traditional modes of media specifically enumerated in the statute.[6][9]

First Amendment issues

Cox asserted that because the plaintiffs are public figures and because she blogged about a matter of public concern, First Amendment protections are triggered. As a result, to prove defamation, actual malice on Cox's part must be shown. "Actual malice" would require that Cox had knowledge of the truth and knowingly disregarded the facts, instead of simply making a false assertion of facts on her blog. Ultimately, the court held that neither Obsidian or Padrick were public figures, stating that the Summit 1031 bankruptcy Cox blogged on was neither controversial nor newsworthy, and Cox was the only person trying to publicize the issue. As a result, actual malice did not need to be proven by the plaintiffs.[6]

Media Protections to Defamation

Cox also asserted that even if the plaintiffs weren't public figures, in order for the plaintiffs to claim damages, they must prove actual malice because she is a "media" outlet. Here, the court again held that Cox did not qualify as "media". In its reasoning, the court cited her lack of a journalism degree, lack of affiliation with traditional media outlets, lack of adherence to journalistic standards such as fact-checking and fair coverage, and the absence of Cox writing any original material rather than assembling the works of others. As such, the plaintiffs could seek damages without any further evidence of actual malice.[6]

Reactions and status after district court ruling

The holdings in this case re-ignited a public discussion over whether bloggers should be considered journalists and entitled to the same protections.[10] Cox suggested that this case "should matter to everyone who writes on the Internet" and that if she "[doesn't] win [her] appeal, we all lose".[1][11] Padrick responded by saying that "the concept of media [would be] rendered worthless [...] if anyone can self-proclaim themselves to be media". 

Padrick also pointed out the real damage done to his reputation and business by Cox, and stated his belief that he would have won the case even if Cox had been considered  "media".[11][12][13] 

Cox's motion for a new trial was denied. Currently, Cox is seeking to appeal the judgment, citing First Amendment grounds. Obsidian has filed a motion to seize and sell Cox's right to appeal to help satisfy its $2.5 million judgment, on the grounds that Cox's appeal right is intangible personal property subject to seizure. Cox is attempting to block the seizure to proceed with the appeal.[15][16][17]

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling

After granting Cox motion for appeal a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court issued its judgement in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014) on January 17, 2014.[3]

Judgement summary and First Amendment defamation impact

Judgement summary

A court summary produced by court staff summarized the Ninth Circuit ruling as follows:

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to a bankruptcy trustee on a defamation claim against an Internet blogger. The panel extended the principle held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974), that the First Amendment required only a "negligence standard for private defamation actions", is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants. The panel further held that the blog post at issue addressed a matter of public concern, and the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find the blogger liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently. The panel held that the bankruptcy trustee did not become a "public official" simply by virtue of court appointment, or by receiving compensation from the court. The panel remanded for a new trial on the blog post at issue, and affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the other blog posts that were deemed constitutionally protected opinions.[3]

First Amendment defamation impact

The issue whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.[3] 

But every United States appeals court which addressed this issue concluded[18][19][20][21][22][23][3] that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan (1964) and its progeny case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.[3][24] The Ninth Circuit followed this trend with its January 2014 ruling by holding that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless he acted negligently.[25] The court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment.[26] 

The court ruling is also a novelty because for the first time [27][28] an appeals court ruled that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently.[25]

The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled[3] ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages.[25] Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they're negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. 

The federal appellate court thus essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment[26] and, in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does."[24]

The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the argument that the negligence standard established for private defamation actions by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. only applied to "the institutional press."[24] "The Gertz court did not expressly limit its holding to the defamation of institutional media defendants," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the three-judge panel. "And, although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the Gertz rule applies beyond the institutional press, it has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers."[24] 

Hurwitz wrote: "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings or tried to get both sides of a story. … In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones."[29]

Source and Full Document with Lots of Links

https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox