UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON Portland Division. V. CRYSTAL COX, Pro Se Defendant

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON Portland Division OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP, LLC and KEVIN D. PADRICK, Plaintiffs, Civil No. CV HZ V. CRYSTAL COX, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox Declaration / Memo to Objecton to MOTION TO APPOINT A RECEIVER AND REQUIRING TURNOVER OF ASSETS I, As Opposing Counsel, in my Pro Se Capacity Object to David Aman, Plaintiff s Attorney s Motion to Appoint a Receiver. Tonkon Torp, David Aman was INVOLVED in the Corruption I, Defendant was Exposing regarding the Summit Bankruptcy, yet he is representing the company to Sue a blogger reporting on his involvement. Judge Hernandez is aware that David Aman, Tonkon Torp was involved in the Summit Bankruptcy and has denied me equal rights based in law. I demand that David Aman Sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure ensuring that he has no Conflict of Interest in this matter. I demand a copy of Tonkon Torp s Law Firms Conflict Check in this matter before David Aman represented Kevin Padrick in this Case. I once again Demand that Judge Marco Hernandez sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure. By law I have a right to an impartial Judge. I have attached an Conflict of Interest Disclosure, yet again. Obsidian V. Cox and all related decisions are a Fraud on the Courts as there has been no Conflict of Interest Disclosure signed and thereby it is assumed that Judge Marco Hernandez is in conflict and refuses to admit nor deny a Conflict of Interest. As Opposing Counsel, in my Pro Se Capacity I demand that David Aman Sign the Attached Conflict of Interest Disclosure as he scours through my bank accounts, dig into the personal details of my life, and dig into my client information for one section of my professional capacity. I have a right to fair and unbiased treatment. David Aman demands information regarding my Search Engine Management business, of which I have made approx. $2500 in 6 years. And yet my Real Estate Clients, Investigative Blogging Clients, Nutritional Supplement Clients, David Aman asks nothing of, in which I have made far more income with over the last 6 years. Judge Hernandez forces me to give information based on my Search Business as well and this has nothing to do with my assets or ability to pay. This is only for the purpose of violating my 14th Amendment Rights and making me bare witness to myself, as they set me up for the crime of extortion and refuse me a public defender, as noted in the Obsidian V. Cox Trial Transcripts I asked for several times and I objected to one out of several being used to set me up for a crime. Judge Hernandez denied me these rights. As Opposing Counsel, in my Pro Se Capacity, I claim that David Aman, Plaintiff s Attorney s 1

2 deposition questions were selective and discriminating and were to set me up, in my Pro Se Capacity. And with no criminal attorney. As Opposing Counsel, in my Pro Se Capacity, further harassment of my client, myself, is unnecessary. She, I have no assets, is hiding no assets and Plaintiff is fully aware of this fact. As Opposing Counsel, in my Pro Se Capacity, I claim that David Aman, Plaintiff s Attorney in conspiracy with Judge Marco Hernandez whom replaced Judge Ancer Haggerty, are on a witch hunt in attempt to set my client, me up for criminal charges. There have no legal right, based in law to continue your probe in this manner, at this point it is not an asset search but merely harassment to attempt to silence my client and set her, me up. As Opposing Counsel, in my Pro Se Capacity I say, as in People v. Konstantinides, it is unlawful to have pressured me to commit perjury in the attached settlement communication between Crystal Cox, me, Opposing Counsel in My Pro Se Capacity and David Aman, Attorney for Plaintiff. As Opposing Counsel, in my Pro Se Capacity, I have a right to Due Process, and to ensure there is No Conflict of Interest in the actions regarding me Pro Se Defendant, Crystal L. Cox, As Opposing Counsel, in my Pro Se Capacity, I claim that Judge Hernandez and Attorney David Aman s actions are continually unlawful, unconstitutional, unethical, violate my rights to due process. As Opposing Counsel, in my Pro Se Capacity, I state that David Aman, Plaintiff s Attorney cannot ethically, lawfully represent Plaintiff Obsidian Finance Group nor Kevin Padrick in going through my private life, bank accounts, clients, and more, David Aman and the Tonkon Torp Law Firm was involved in the Summit Bankruptcy Violation Codes I am alleging and was named in the Objection to the Fees which was my primary source of the post I was on trial for. David Aman s Serious Conflict of Interest in this case violates my constitutional rights and is not based in law. As Opposing Counsel, in my Pro Se Capacity, I demand Attorney David Aman, Attorney Marc Randazza and Judge Hernandez stop their witch hunt on my client and obey the laws of the United States of America and the Constitution. In my Deposition David Aman asked me who had paid me for Search Engine Reputation Management, and this is confusing as I do many PR and online marketing jobs and when he asks for this particular section, it is difficult to differentiate. David Aman claims to have the right to ask who is paying me, in my deposition he said, I can call the judge if you refuse to answer. See David Aman asked Crystal Cox, Pro Se Defendant in this slamming, condecending manner because that is what David Aman did the day before the trial in Portland Oregon. I refused to answer questions regarding my Search Engine Business as it was irrelevant to the post I was on trial for, I Objected over and over. David Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney responded by calling Judge Hernandez into the room, the Judge, off the record and with no Transcription taken ordered me to tell David Aman about this business of mine. Not my Supplement Business which I make a living at, not my real estate business, not my investigative blogging business, PR Services, only this one particular business that I was not even doing for a living I simply want to. 2

3 So this is why he threatened calling the Judge again, though we were in a town 5 hours away from Portland, and at a Deposition for Assets, clearly that was a threat. I was not resisting telling him, I just did not understand his questions or his motives, other then to violate my 14th Amendment Rights in forcing me to bare witness to myself in an alleged crime. In my Deposition, (the 25 pages that David Aman did not include in his exhibit to this motion) I said you have gave information to the New York Times that accused me of a crime for this service, so you can see my concern. He said are you going to answer or not, I did answer, and I was confused and gave several names for different services as truly I can only remember one person who has paid me for Search Engine Reputation Management and that was Ed Humphrey, whom found me on Craigslist, and responded to that ad I placed. The others I told David Aman in deposition were actually PR, and Research Clients. These businesses often blur. See David Aman is clearly trying to conspire to set me up for a crime, and me, without legal representation, David Aman continues to harass, badger, lie to the courts about and basically deny my right to due process and violate my constitutional rights. See if David Aman really was asking this Post Trial Deposition question to find out my assets and income, why would he say I am asking because I want to know who is paying you. He angrily said, I want to Know who is Paying You. This makes no sense, as clearly I make a living from selling supplements, and have, in the last three years made money at real estate and other marketing gigs which I gave those clients to him, because I did not understand what he wanted and why. Seemed David Aman wanted to know who was paying me but for only one tiny part of my income of 3-6 years, in fact probably less then three thousand dollars I have earned from Search Engine Reputation Management. SO why focus there? Unless the True Motive is not really acting as an attorney to check for assets and execute a judgement but instead to probe into my life and to attempt to set me up from something I did not do. I once again Object to This. Is this point of asking of past clients to know my personal business and set me up? I mean what does that have to do with current income, income after the trial or income that the Plaintiff may be able to take as I make it, Nothing. See if David Aman was sincere, and lawful, he would only legally and ethically be allowed to ask what my income was at this point in time so that I may be able to make payments on my $2.5 Million Dollar Judgement. However this was not the point, the point was and is to simply set me up, and this violates my rights and is not based in law. See I have hundreds of Distributors at the MLM Company I work for, hundreds to thousands of clients, and many buy a few hundred a month in supplements from my blogs, from me. That is my source of income, and David Aman did not ask for one name of one customer, one person whom pays me, not one distributor name. Also I have been a real estate Broker Owner for over a Decade, he asked of any income over last couple years, I told him one house, he said in Montana, I said Yes. He did not ask me the name of the client, the buyer, the seller, NOTHING, not one name did he ask for, and that was 20 times the money I have made from Search Engine Reputation Management. I have also made money at research, investigative blogging, he was not interested in that. So the point was obvious and that was and is to set me up for Criminal Charges, even though I have done nothing illegal. And I am and have been writing on a Federal Bankruptcy Case that Involved Tonkon Torp and the Plaintiff Kevin Padrick. The Objection to the Fees, a legal filing in the Summit Bankruptcy complaining to the DOJ and the Bankruptcy Courts about Tonkon Torp and Obsidian Finance Group, that was the main source of my blogs 3

4 and especially the post they sued me on. And now the law firm I was exposing is perusing through my bank records, my clients, my life and violating my due process at every turn in the road. David Aman conspired with people to harm, harass and intimidate me, phone and records would show that conspired to intimidate and harass a pro se defendant, Judge Hernandez has been made aware of this for many months. As Opposing Counsel, in my Pro Se Capacity ALL parties are Demanded to sign the attached Conflict of Interest Letter, swearing that you have no conflict in the Obsidian Finance Vs. Crystal Cox Case. I have this legal right. Exhibit 1, attached shows that David Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney and Plaintiff agreed that they fully believed and accepted that I had no assets, now however they continue to harass me for assets I do not have. They also asked that I pay $5000 every time I post on them, and Judge Hernandez considers this, NOT EXTORTION but instead attorney communications, whereby my s of offered, Judge Hernandez unlawfully, and unethically accuse of being criminal. In the November of 2011 offer to Settle, Plaintiff David Aman pressured me to commit a crime by set up and blaming others, and yet Judge Hernandez condones this. David Aman asked me, in my deposition what my medical bills were for, this violates my privacy rights and is a HIPAA Violation. This is also not included in the Deposition that David Aman Submitted here. I have not been given a copy of the Deposition and the Spokane Reporting Agency Said I had until May 4th to come and edit the Deposition, this was a lie and violated my rights as clearly the Plaintiff has the Depostion Transcripts Before I was given a Legal Right to check for errors. I have witness to this phone call from Spokane Reporting. Also in Exhibit you see that David Aman was trying to cut a deal whereby I would stop posting on Tonkon Torp Lawyers as well. Clearly David Aman, is pressuring Opposing Counsel in her Pro Se Capacity, to silence an investigative writer on the details of a $40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy. In my Deposition, David Aman asked me who I had solicited for Search Engine Jobs, this is invasive and wrong. I get dozens of s a week from companies offer this same service. Who I have ever solicited for work is not relevant to the assets or income that I have. I, Crystal L. Cox, Opposing Counsel in my Pro Se Capacity have demanded a Public Defender in the accusation of crimes. David Aman Lied in court documents in the opposition to new trial and said that I was not reporting on a Government Program, that Bankruptcy Was not a Government Program. David Aman Continues to Lie about this Case and Judge Hernandez Continues to deny my rights to due process. Crystal L. Cox, Opposing Counsel in my Pro Se Capacity claim that it is not lawful to make you testify against yourself in a criminal probe in a deposition for a civil trial. aka Bear Witness to yourself. Much more on this as I am including this in my complaints as in the Obsidian V. Cox case, Attorney David 4

5 Aman, and Enforced By Judge Marco Hernandez, I was ordered to give information for "them" to set me up for a crime. One in which David Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney has accused me of over and over and they refuse me a public defender yet force me to discuss the matter in depositions, one, the day before the Trial and one disguised as an asset probe. However this deposition was only about past income and not about future income and ability to pay. More on that Later and the Laws, Rights, Codes that were violated in my depositions by David Aman and enforced by Judge Marco Hernandez. "Fourteenth Amendment Definition... The first section of the amendment, however, was to revolutionize federalism. It stated that no state could deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Gradually, the Supreme Court interpreted the amendment to mean that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well as to the national government." Source of Above Quote " freedom against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment had been violated" Source I was denied the freedom against self incrimination by Judge Marco Hernandez and Attorney David Aman, even though Trial Transcrips who over and over a I objected and I asked for a Public Defender, I was told I was not being accused of a crime and yet David Aman asked both Depostions of activities he was trying to use to set me up for a crime, and Judge Marco Hernandez enforced this action. And Judge Marco Hernandez accused me of a Crime in a motion to deny a new trial in a civil matter, this is also a violation of my constitutional rights, the Bill of Rights, and my rights of due process by law. Self Incrimination, Due Process, Bearing Witness to Yourself, If they Violate your Rights File Complaints til' Someone Listens. " nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Source of Quote It is a Violation of Law, and of Oregon Judicial Rules to not be impartial. I asked, I demanded, over and over for Judge Marco Hernandez to sign a conflict of interest disclosure ensure that he was impartial and had no conflicts of Interest. Judge Marco Hernandez refused to sign this Disclosure for a year and counting. Judge Marco Hernandez did not act independent as Judge Marco Hernandez has connections to Perkin Coie Law Firm, and seems to be protecting the attorneys involved in the Summit Bankruptcy Code Violations and Cover Ups. It is a criminal act to not disclose a Conflict of Interest. I have asked Judge Marco Hernandez to Sign a Disclosure for a Year and Counting. Judge Hernandez Violated Judicial Rule 1 in failing to disclose or deny a conflict of interest, Judge Hernandez misrepresented his interests in Obsidia V. Cox. Judge Hernandez did allow a social or other relationship to influence judicial conduct and judgement and this violated the Rights of Crystal Cox, pro se defendant and is a Fraud on the Courts. He also testified as a character witness in placing his opinion of me in a motion to deny a new trial and inciting public 5

6 hate towards me based on his personal opinion and agenda and not the law. Judge Hernandez discriminated against me as a Pro Se Litigant. Judge Hernandez has many private meetings without my knowledge with the Plaintiff s Attorney, and gave him special influence with the judge. "JR (A) A judge shall observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary are preserved and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system. (B) A judge shall not commit a criminal act. (C) A judge shall not engage in conduct that reflects adversely on the judge s character, competence, temperament or fitness to serve as a judge. (D) A judge shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. (E) A judge shall not allow family, social or other relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. (F) A judge shall not use the position to advance the private interests of the judge or any person, nor shall a judge convey or permit anyone to convey the impression that anyone has a special influence with the judge, but a judge may provide a character or ability reference for a person about whom the judge has personal knowledge. (G) A judge shall not testify as a character witness except pursuant to subpoena. (H) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that the judge knows is a discriminatory organization. For purposes of this rule, discriminatory organization" means an organization that, as a policy or practice and contrary to applicable federal or state law, treats persons less favorably in granting membership privileges, allowing participation or providing services on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, disability or age Source JR (A) A judge shall provide to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and to that person s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. Judge Marco Hernandez did not allow me the right to be heard according to law, in fact Judge Hernandez tricked me into not testifying at my own trial on my own behalf. And violated my 14th amendment by forcing me to bear witness to an alleged crime Judge Hernandez and Plaintiff s Attorney David Aman were accusing me of and setting me up for. Judge Hernandez ordered I discuss this issue in my deposition the day before the Trial, and this was Off the Record of the Official Court Transcripts. Rule B says this, (B) A judge shall not communicate or permit or cause another to communicate with a lawyer or party about any matter in an adversary proceeding outside the course of the proceeding, except with the consent of the parties or as expressly authorized by law or permitted by this rule. Yet Judge Hernandez had many meetings and discussions with the Plaintiff s Attorney without allowing me to participate. This violated my rights. 6

7 JR A judge shall not, while a proceeding is pending in any court within the judge s jurisdiction, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of the proceeding. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel who are subject to the judge s direction or control. This rule shall not prohibit a judge from making public statements in the course of official duties, from explaining for public information the procedures of the courts, from establishing a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the judge or from otherwise responding to allegations concerning the judge s conduct in the proceeding Judge Hernandez commented in a final motion as to my being singled out and the laws applying to other blogger just not me and that this was based on his Test and not law, of who is media. He accused me of a crime in a motion to deny a new trial in a civil case. All the while a Fraud on the Court, as he failed over and over to Sign a Conflict of interest disclosure. JR (A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge s impartiality reasonably may be questioned, including but not limited to instances when (1) the judge has a bias or prejudice concerning a party or has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously was associated served during the association as a lawyer in the matter, or the judge or the lawyer has been a material witness in the matter; (3) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge s spouse, parent or child, wherever residing, or any other person residing in the judge s household has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy, is a party to the proceeding or has any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; Judge Marco Hernandez was personally connected to the Summit Bankruptcy Creditor Attorney Michael Simon and this was not disclosed. He knew full well he was not impartial and this violates my rights to due process, to law, and a fair and impartial trial. JR A judge shall be faithful to the law and shall decide matters on the basis of the facts and applicable law. Judge Hernandez did not base decision on Law in the Obsidian V. Cox case, he had the Opinion I was guilty of extortion and based judgement on this Opinion and not the laws that should have applied to me. 7

8 Clearly Judge Hernandez has violated Defendant s Rights and is above the alw. "According to Rule 4 of Oregon's code of judicial conduct, judicial candidates shall not: Misrepresent a judicial candidate's identity, qualifications, present position, education, experience, or other fact. Make pledges or promises of conduct in office that could inhibit or compromise the faithful, impartial, and diligent performance of the duties of the office. Personally solicit campaign contributions. However, they may establish committees to obtain and manage finances, including contributions, and pay expenses to promote the candidate's election. Publicly identify themselves as members of a political party." Source state= Judge Marco Hernandez Violated the Bill Of Rights, Violated my Civil Rights, Broke the Law in Failing to Sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure, This is a Fraud on the Court and Judge Hernandez is demanded to be disqualified from Obsidian V. Cox and all decision he made in any way regarding Defendant Crystal Cox, in this Fraud on the Court shall be Null and Void I, in my Pro Se Capacity am filing complaints with the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, Government Oversight and Transparency Authorities, the FCC, the Oregon Judicial Committee, the Oregon DOJ, the Oregon Attorney General, and filing Criminal Complaints as well as I am suing Judge Marco Hernandez, outside of the Judicial Immunity Laws and via my legal rights. The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act - FSIA applies to this as well. I am also filing a Judicial Complaint against Judge Hernandez for acting outside of his Judicial Capacity or Jurisdiction within his own personal capacity - and suing under US using FSIA on Prosecution in Federal Court. I, Crystal Cox in my Pro Se Capacity Demand that Judge Marco Hernandez sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure and that David Aman, Tonkon Torp Sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure ensuring that he has no Conflict of Interest in this matter. Obsidian Vs. Cox is a Fraud on the Courts, and Defendant Crystal Cox will not answer any orders from this court, as a matter of law until based on law Disclosure of Conflicts are disclosed to Defendant. Regarding Domain Names In Lieu of Debt Owed to Eliot Bernstein I ed Plaintiff's Attorney on April 6th, Stating that Domain Names were transferred to me out of fear. In the meantime I Crystal Cox, in my Pro Se Capacity had been negotiating with Mr. Bernstein, as I owed him $25,000 as of April of 2011, I made Plaintiff's Attorney fully aware of this debt and debt with other individuals that pre-date the Obsidian V. Cox Judgement. I have been trying to negotiate this debt reduction or payment in full with these individuals over the last year. 8

9 In the last couple of weeks Mr. Bernstein has sought advice and feels that the threat of violence has settled down and he has recently agreed fully to clear my Debt in Full for my Domain Name Portfolio. My Debt with the Bernstein Family is now Paid in Full and is to be removed from the Debt Declaration in which Plaintiff s Attorney has record of. The of April 11th in which David Aman attached as an Exhibit, I do not have record of Receiving. I objected on the 19th of April to David Aman s . Soon after this i received word that Eliot Bernstein had agreed to settle our debt, by receiving my Domain Name Portfolio in payment of this debt. Regarding Plaintiff s Attorney Statements of Ms. Cox s Deposition, Mr. Aman leaves out the part of the Deposition where he asked me about my debt with other individuals, I do not have a copy of the Deposition, as I cannot afford to purchase it. I was called to come and check for errors, I was to go in on Monday April 30th and was told that the Deposition would be mailed to Mr. Aman after this, the court recorder in Spokane Washington deceived me, the Full Deposition discusses the Debt owed to others before the Judgement for Obsidian Finance Group was entered. You will note that page 24 of David Aman's declaration says page 51 of the deposition, he omitted pages 24 to 51 in this Motion to the courts, as you see that page 23 of the David Aman Declaration says page 23. Mr. Aman omitted the part of the deposition that discusses my prior debt. I am currently seeking ways to make a living as my prior way was my domain names, I have no idea what Mr. Bernstein and Family intend to do with the Domain Names and no further contracts are attached to this receivership, which has already took place to pay a debt incurred before Obsidian Vs. Cox s Judgement was filed with the Oregon Courts. I have attached numerous Exhibits including s to and from David Aman, Plaintiff Attorney, Marc Randazza s, News Releases and Conflict of Interest Disclosures I demand be signed. Obsidian Vs. Cox is a Fraud on the Court and has no Jurisdiction to make decisions on my behalf in any manner. I, Crystal Cox in my Pro Se Capacity also Object to discrimination as a Reverend and as a Lesbian. I have been repeatidly harassed due to my sexual orientation in this case. And in becoming a Minister in February, and starting a Ministry I have also been discriminated against and harassed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served the foregoing DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO Plaintiff s Opposition of MOTION FOR Sanction Against David Aman, Tonkon Torp. on: April 29th 2011 David Aman Tonkon Torp, Attorney for Plaintiff Electronically at the Following Addresses 9

10 Reverend Crystal L. Cox Pro Se Defendant, in Her Pro Se Capacity Civil No. CV HZ 10