Judge Marco Hernandez ~ Corrupt, Conflicted, Portland Judge Protecting the Culture of Corruption in Portland ~ Portland Oregon

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Hernandez has acted unlawful, unethical, discriminating, prejudice and unconstitutional in his rulings regarding pro se litigant, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox .

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  is an Activist Litigant making a stand for the rights of all Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers. Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  is an Anti-Corruption Blogger, and a resident of Washington State.

 All rulings in this case affect the free speech and First Amendment rights of all, as well as all those involved in bankruptcy corruption cases, and therefore Obsidian v. Cox is very important and at the core of this important speech chilling, First Amendment case is the issue of a non-impartial, prejudice, rights violating judge.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Hernandez has violated her rights to due process, Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 22 and 28 U.S. Code, Human Rights, 42 U.S. Code, and her First Amendment of U.S Constitution. Cox alleges that Hernandez did this deliberately to protect Judges, Finance Companies, Law Firms and Utility Companies in Oregon.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez had private meetings via phone, in person and email communications with Obsidian Finance Group’s attorney David Aman, without allowing Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  to have minutes from these meetings, without notify Pro Se Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox , and thereby violated Cox’s rights and the Rules of Procedure.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez had private meetings via phone, in person and email communications with attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group without allowing Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  to have minutes from these meetings, without notify Pro Se Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox , and thereby violated Cox’s rights and the Rules of Procedure.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  moves this court to provide Cox with a record of all communications Judge Marco Hernandez has had via phone, in person and email communications with Obsidian Finance Group’s attorney David Aman or with Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that the above stated private communications were used to set up, incriminate, paint in false light, commit fraud on the court, act in conspiracy and collusion and convince the world the Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  had committed and was determined guilty of the felony crime of extortion.

 Judge Hernandez knew that Cox was concerned of this issue, as noted in the court hearing dated, Nov. 28th 2011, page 16, whereby Cox asks for help and asks of her rights in the Criminal Justice system regarding the extortion allegations.

 As the record clearly shows, Judge Marco Hernandez stated that extortion was NOT alleged and was not part of this case, however Judge Marco Hernandez allowed the ONE email, out of context, to come in as evidence against Cox, the very next day, at the Obsidian v. Cox Trial.

 Judge Marco Hernandez, himself, even with the above noted, accused Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  of extortionate behavior in “OPINION & ORDER: Defendant's motion for new trial 105 is denied. Signed on 3/27/2012 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez”.  

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez has and had EXTREME prejudice against her as a pro se litigant and as a muckraker, or investigative journalist exposing corruption that involved his friend Judge Michael Simon, who was involved in the Summit Bankruptcy and involved some of the most powerful and wealthy law firms, finance companies and utility companies in the State of Oregon.

 Judge Marco Hernandez clearly and convincingly, without a doubt, has violated the due process rights of Crystal Cox, the First Amendment rights of Cox, the Bill of Rights, the Rules of Procedure and the Constitutional Rights of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox .

 Therefore Cox moves this court to REMOVE Judge Marco Hernandez from Obsidian v. Cox, as the presiding Judge and to investigate Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox ’s allegations regarding the unethical, unconstitutional, and violations of due process in which Judge Marco Hernandez participated in.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez was involved or had knowledge of Jury Tampering.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  told Judge Marco Hernandez that the head Jury was related to the VP of Obsidian Finance Group and Judge Marco Hernandez took no action to protect the rights of Pro Se litigant, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox .

 As the record shows, Judge Marco Hernandez chose Joseph Whittington to be head juror in Obsidian v. Cox, knowing full well of his connections to and conflict of interest with Obsidian VP, Patricia Whittington.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez violated her rights in forcing her to discuss her Search Engine Business, unrelated to the case at hand, and did so “off the record”, called in by attorney David Aman, as the camera clearly shows a shut off time in Cox’s deposition, whereby Hernandez came into the room and RULED, Ordered that Cox answer questions that clearly Aman used in the Trial to paint Cox in false light, make Cox look as though she was a criminal, and to ultimately rule against Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  in a 10 million dollar civil action.

 The record clearly shows that this part of Cox’s deposition was used against her the very next day in the Obsidian v. Cox trial. And the deposition record clearly shows a break in the video taping, yet there is no court docket of this ruling. Present in the room was the deposition recorder, the video person, David Aman, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox , and Judge Marco Hernandez’s clerk.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez colluded with attorney Marc Randazza and attorney David Aman to paint her in false light and deliberately make it look to the world that Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  was guilty of the crime of extortion, which was, in no way, a material factor in her CIVIL defamation case, Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez violated her due process rights, violated law, misled Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  and violated her constitutional rights in a hearing dated Nov. 18th 2011, whereby Judge Marco Hernandez “claimed” he was contacting the FBI, regarding David Aman colluding with a man in Montana to harm, stalk, intimidate and harass Cox. Judge Marco Hernandez NEVER did contact the FBI, and simply lied in this matter.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455, and clear and convincing examination of the record, there is ample evidence of bias, prejudice, partiality, and extreme conflict of interest in regard to Judge Hernandez ruling over matters that affect the life, business, quality of life and other legal regards in concern to Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  and therefore Cox alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez should be ordered to be removed / reclused from the civil case Civil No. CV 11-0057 HZ, Obsidian v. Cox.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez endangered her life, put her under extreme and constant duress for 3 years and counting, criminally defamed her in a motion denying a new trial, accusing Cox of extortionate behavior, and has denied Cox due process of law in all regards.

 Judge Marco Hernandez has clearly violated Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox ’s rights and Cox alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez has committed fraud on the courts, and has conspired with attorneys David Aman and Marc Randazza to criminally defame Cox and broadcast these false allegations to the world, without Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  having due process of law as is her constitutional right.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  moved the court to Enjoin the Attorney General of Oregon, and the of the United States into these matters and to investigate Judge Marco Hernandez’s connections to Obsidian Finance Group, Judge Michael Simon, the Tonkon Torp Law Firm, and all other lawyers and companies connected to the Summit Accomodators / Summit 1031 Bankruptcy out of Bend Oregon.

 In the Obsidian v. Cox case, Crystal Cox had clear First Amendment rights, as a matter of clear, convincing and obvious law.

 Yet Judge Marco Hernandez deliberately discriminated against Cox and criminally defamed Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  in order to protect organized crime in Portland Oregon that Cox alleges involves Portland’s top law firms, Judges, utility companies and finance companies.

 Judge Marco Hernandez clearly, as a matter of record and law, violated Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox ’s rights in not allowing Cox to even know what she was on trial for.

 As a matter prudent to this court, and to save this court years of taxpayers money, and a  matter of law, Judge Marco Hernandez should have dismissed this case years ago, regarding Oregon’s retraction law, as CLEARLY Cox is a “medium of communication” (she would have to be to even be consider to having possibly defamed).

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  was not asked to remove ANY blog post and then given 2 weeks notice to remove said post. Judge Marco Hernandez SHOULD have dismissed Obsidian v. Cox for this reason, but instead he wanted to scare and intimidate Cox in hopes Cox would STOP reporting on corruption in Portland Oregon.

 Judge Marco Hernandez SHOULD have dismissed this case via Anti-SLAPP laws, but refused to do this too, even though it was clearly within Cox’s legal and constitutional rights.

 Judge Marco Hernandez clearly violated due process law, and rules of civil procedure and showed clear and convincing discrimination when he DENIED Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  right to KNOW what she was on trial for.

 In January of 2011, Obsidian Finance Group filed a 10 million dollar lawsuit against Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox . Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox , at that time had over 400 blogs, tens of thousands of blog posts and she had been reporting on Obsidian Finance Group for over 3 years, as Plaintiff FULLY knew, proven in a deposition of Summit insider Stephanie DeYoung in August of 2009. Yet this 10 million dollar legal actions, stated no blog post that Cox was sued for.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  had NO IDEA what Blog Post she was being sued for 10 million dollars for, Cox filed a motion moving this court to rule that Plaintiff had to tell her what posts she was sued for, it was called a motion for a more definitive statement.

 With extreme prejudice and in violation of rules of procedure and Coxs’ constitutional rights, Judge Marco Hernandez DENIED Cox a right to know what she was on trial for, this clearly violated Cox’s due process rights, 14th amendment rights, Bill of Rights and left Cox out on the cold regarding retraction laws and anti-slapp laws.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal 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 what blog post she was on trial for nor was Cox 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, yet was DENIED the right to know what blog posts she was being sued for.

 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.

 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"

 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 from arbitrary actions by state as well as federal governments, which includes the arbitrary actions of Judge Marco Hernandez in Denying Cox the right to know WHAT she was on trial for.

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 remove Judge Marco Hernandez from any further rulings in this case and to contact the FBI and other authorities in these matters. (as is clearly within this court’s jurisdiction, as a matter of record, see hearing Nov. 18th 2011, as Judge Hernandez claimed to be calling for an FBI investigation and NEVER did).

 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 Judge Marco Hernandez 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 all federal Judges to silence, chill the speech of, those exposing corruption.

 In July of 2011, without Cox’s knowledge or approval in any way, Judge Marco Hernandez took it upon himself to GRANT Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  a Summary Judgement, and then he set a hearing for August of 2011.

 At this August hearing, Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that there be a Jury Trial in November and that all discover was over. Though Cox filed documents letting the court know she did not understand, in regard to the jury, Cox was ignored repeatedly.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  was new to being pro se at the time and did not understand why there was to be a Jury Trial when there was no demand for a Jury trial by Plaintiff. Cox was denied clarification on Jury Instructions, by Judge Marco Hernandez.

 Local Rule 38- says,  “The words DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL must be included on the last line of the document title of any jury demand instrument filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b),” Yet clearly Judge Marco Hernandez discriminated against Cox and forced her to have a Jury Trial, even though Plaintiff had NEVER filed any motion that demanded a Jury Trial.

 This Jury trial is what set Cox up to be criminally defamed to the world as an alleged convicted felon, of the crime extortion.

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  did NOT want a Jury Trial, nor did Cox EVER agree to a Jury Trial and assumed all along that there would be only a bench trial.

 Days before the Trial Cox was told to give the court Jury instruction and when Cox told the court she did not understand what this meant or how to do this, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  was Denied an explanation in this matter

 Clearly, as a matter of local rules and federal law, no jury trial was properly demanded, yet Judge Marco Hernandez took it upon himself to violate law and the rights of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox .

 Clearly, as a matter of law, there needs to be a demand of a jury in order to have a right to one; as per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38. Yet Judge Marco Hernandez clearly discriminated against Cox and forced her to have a jury trial which has ruined Cox’s life, business, and criminally defamed Cox.

 As a matter of local rules and federal law, a judge is not allowed to call for a jury trial on his own, or to excuse both parties’ failure to demand a jury.  See Lutz v. Glendale Union High School 403 F.3d 1061, 1065 n.4 (9th Cir. 2005), and the cases that it relies on, yet Judge Hernandez acted above the law and in clear discrimination of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox .

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b) says that there should have been a bench trial unless there was a motion granted to try any issue(s) to the jury.   Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  did NOT give consent to a Jury Trial and did not understand why there was to be a Jury and yet Cox was forced to have a Jury trial.

 It should be clear to this court that Judge Hernandez acted in conflict and outside of law, over and over in this case. There is NO Motion that Demands a Jury Trial, yet Judge Hernandez FORCED Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  to have a Jury Trial.

 In Obsidian v. Cox, Clearly Judge Marco Hernandez has repeatedly violated Local Rules, Federal Rules, Civil and Human Rights, the Bill of Rights, Constitutional Rights, and due process. Cox moves this court to Judge Marco Hernandez and to file a complaint with the Department of Justice, FBI, and Attorney General into these matters.

 Judge Marco Hernandez DENIED Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  the right to a counterclaim which is her legal right, and he did not add any of the counter defendants to the Obsidian v. Cox Docket. Yet in clear discrimination against Crystal Cox and iViewit founder, Eliot Bernstein,

Judge Marco Hernandez added Eliot Bernstein to the Obsidian v. Cox docket as a named Defendant, in violation of local rules and federal law, 6 MONTHS after the Obsidian v. Cox trial was over. So here we have a new defendant DEFAMED and listed as a defendant in a 2.5 million dollar verdict of a trial that had happened 6 MONTHS before. Judge Hernandez is clearly with motive, and is clearly in conflict.

 Judge Marco Hernandez ruled completely outside of law and prior Supreme Court precedence in RULING that the First Amendment did not apply to Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox , as if she was somehow the only person in the world that the First Amendment did not apply to, and why? Because Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  was and IS exposing corruption in Judge Marco Hernandez’s jurisdiction aka “neck of the woods”. Judge Marco Hernandez tried to suppress the flow of information and chill the speech of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox . When she held her ground, he maliciously defamed her in court rulings accusing her of criminal conduct, of which she had no due process on and has thus ruined her life, all because Judge Marco Hernandez did not like her and was protecting his associates. Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  moves this court to protect her rights to neutrality and REMOVE Judge Marco Hernandez from this case.

 Judge Marco Hernandez ruled that Crystal Cox’s hundreds of thousands of blogs posts, years of online media, internet publications and online magazines (blogs) were NOT media. Cox alleges that this was discriminating, deliberate and with malice. I, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  have personally had eMail for over 17 years. The internet as MEDIA and a “Medium of Communication” has been around much longer than that. Yet Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that Retraction Laws don’t apply to COX because she is a blogger. This makes no sense and is not based in law, as thousands, if not millions of blogs online are mediums of communications, are free press, pulpits, big and small media outlets. Yet Judge Marco Hernandez deliberately defamed, discriminated against and prejudiced Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  in order to protect Portland Corruption.

 Cox alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez planned that the ruling go against Cox, added to this deliberate jury tampering and go against previous rulings of the defamatory email and the stating loss of income as he clearly ruled the day before the trial. Cox alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez knew Cox would lose and the plan was to then, simply that Tonkon Torp would relieve the debt if Cox would remove all corruption allegations, and all blog posts talking about Kevin Padrick, Tonkon Torp, David Aman, Leon Simpson and Obsidian Finance Group. Another words hide the blatant fact the Kevin Padrick was ILLEGALLY the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy and made MASSIVE amounts of money, as did Portland Oregon’s top law firms, utility companies and Judges.. yes Cox believes Judges were paid off.. however the Judge defendant is speaking of here is Judge Michael Simon, friend of Judge Marco Hernandez who made millions on top of millions in the Summit Bankruptcy as a Creditors attorney, and in the Umpqua bank lawsuits and more. Cox alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez made her PAY the price of millions in judgements, ruin her life, put her under extreme, slanderous and defamatory duress for years and all to protect his associates, Cox the collateral damage to corruption in the State of Oregon.

 Judge Marco Hernandez, as shown in the hearing dated Nov. 28th 2011, flat out told Tonkon Torp, David Aman, that they / he could not enter the email or they entered my “state of mind” aka actual malice. Judge Marco Hernandez, as shown in the hearing dated Nov. 28th 2011, flat out told Tonkon Torp, David Aman that he could NOT simply state a loss for Obsidian Finance Group of millions and that the alleged BANK VP would have to testify, or there was no loss. Judge Marco Hernandez, as the RECORD clearly shows, said he was giving Tonkon Torp the night to summons or “get” the bank VP so he could testify. And that without this they could not use hearsay as stated loss.

 Yet, as the record shows, Judge Marco Hernandez, went against his own ruling. Cox alleges that he conspired with the Plaintiff and others over night and then simply IGNORED the ruling and wala, next day, Obsidian Finance Group said, hey we lost millions. That blog post of December 25th, 2010, ya ummm we lost millions over it so 2 weeks later on January 14th 2011, we filed a 10 Million dollar lawsuit. No we don’t have to prove it, we said so .. so there ya go, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  loses time, money, friends, family, her home, her way of life, her quality of life and all because Judge Marco Hernandez discriminated against her, ruled outside of law, slandered her and violated her constitutional rights and due process rights.

 Though the original COMPLAINT for 10 million against Cox, accuses her of having actual malice and deliberately, knowingly stating false information, Judge Marco Hernandez never let actual malice or knowledge of facts enter the case. This is against Cox’s rights and an error in LAW and constitutional rights.

 Cox alleges that she has no way, whatsoever to impartiality or a fair ruling on any motion at all in Obsidian v. Cox as Judge Marco Hernandez clearly has it out for Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox , the record shows this WITHOUT A DOUBT.

Clearly, a matter of law, Judge Marco Hernandez has engaged in deceitful and obstructionist conduct. There is plenty of "clear and convincing" evidence shows that Judge Marco Hernandez duped the court and violated the due process rights and constitutional rights of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  and has thus caused her irreparable damage.

Background

1.)   On January 14th, 2011 David Aman, Tonkon Torp Lawyer involved in Summit Accommodators bankruptcy and the corruption Blogger Crystal Cox was alleging in her online media , on behalf of Obsidian Finance Group, Financial Advisors to Summit Accommodators, and on behalf of Kevin D. Padrick 50% owner of Obsidian Finance Group and Bankruptcy Trustee in the Bankruptcy Case of Summit Accommodators filed a 10 Million Dollar lawsuit against blogger Crystal Cox who they knew was reporting on the Summit Bankruptcy for 3 years, as per a sworn video deposition of Summit Insider, whistle blower, Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung, on August 25th, 2009.

The lawsuit, now known as Civil No. CV 11-0057 HZ, gave no blog post that Plaintiff had an issue with. Cox had thousands of blog posts and no way to know which posts she was being sued for. Plaintiff did not ask for a retraction, which by law they must in order to sue Cox for Defamation, nor did Plaintiff give Cox a blog post they had issue with. Instead Plaintiff filed a 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit against Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox .

In her defense and wishing to settle the matter quickly, Cox filed a motion for clarification, “Motion for more Definitive Statement” filed 4-11-2011, asking the courts to rule that Plaintiff had to tell Cox what blog posts they were suing her for 10 Million over, so that Cox may attempt to remedy the situation of come to some sensible settlement of low cost solution that did not waste the courts time and money.

This is SHOCKING.Judge Marco Hernandez allowed massive amounts of the courts time, taxpayer money and years of ruining lives, and he did not even allow the DEFENDANT to know what blog post she was being sued on?

On 5-19-2011 Judge Marco Hernandez DENIED Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox ’s request to know what blog post Plaintiff was suing her for 10 Million Dollars for. Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  had no idea which post was an issue for Plaintiff.

2.)  Civil No. CV 11-0057 HZ, Complaint Filed on January 14th, 2011 stated, “10. Defendant has knowingly and intentionally published the false and defamatory statements alleged above with actual knowledge of their falsity or with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements. " (See Page 3 of Original Complaint Civil No. CV 11-0057 HZ)

Judge Marco Hernandez did not allow Cox to defend herself on these allegations and in fact continued out the case for, which is ongoing now, 3 years, alleging that Cox has / had no legal right to provide a defense for the accusing of having malice, in the original complaint.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  was sued for 10 Million Dollars and one of the allegations against Cox was that she, “Defendant has knowingly and intentionally published the false and defamatory statements alleged above with actual knowledge of their falsity or with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements.”

Yet, Judge Marco Hernandez deliberately, maliciously, willfully, neglectfully and with superior knowledge of the law violated the rights of Due Process of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  and violated her Constitutional Rights.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  had a legal right to defend allegations made against her and had no blog post to go. Once Cox was given a blog post, 6 months after she answered the complaint, Cox was heading to trial and told she could not address the issue of whether she had actually malice or not, though this was alleged in the original complaint.

Judge Marco Hernandez violated the rights Cox had to answer what was alleged of her, and violated Cox’s right to a fair and equal defense.

Cox alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez has massive conflicts of interest in this case connected to Judge Michael Simon who was a Perkins Coie attorney who made millions in regard to the Summit Bankruptcy, as Perkins Coie was the Creditor attorney and Judge Simon was involved in the Umpqua Bank lawsuits in which settled for over $30 Million dollars, of which Judge Michael Simon and Trustee Kevin Padrick, as well as Perkins Coie attorney Steven Hedberg who worked previously at Miller Nash with Kevin Padrick, all made large amounts of money.

The entire case, the jury instructions, Cox’s defense,  including Cox’s Ninth Circuit appeal was centered around whether Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  had malice or not. Hernandez denied Cox the right to prove whether she had malice or not, deliberately in order to harm Cox, intimidate Cox, discredit Cox as she was reporting on his friends and associates.

Cox had a clear First Amendment Right in Obsidian v. Cox and had the right to defend her self on the allegation of  “10. Defendant has knowingly and intentionally published the false and defamatory statements alleged above with actual knowledge of their falsity or with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements. " (See Page 3 of Original Complaint Civil No. CV 11-0057 HZ). Yet Judge Marco Hernandez denied Cox this right.

In the original Complaint, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  had been given no blog post, no way to remedy the situation and had been accused of having malice, therefore Cox’s defense should have been allowed to be centered around whether she had malice.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez used extreme prejudice against her as a pro se litigant and as a reporter writing about corruption that involved his associate, friend Judge Michael Simon and the Perkins Coie Law Firm. As well as other Portland Judges such as Judge Randall Dunn and the Portland DOJ, Pamela Griffith.

3.) On 05-04-2011, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff and his attorney who was involved in the corruption Cox was alleging.  

On 8-30-2011, Judge Marco Hernandez RULED “ ORDER: Plaintiffs to move on defendant's counterclaims within 10 days (9/9/2011). Defendant to respond within 10 days thereafter.” ( See Docket Entry 34 Obsidian v. Cox)

On 10-18-2011, Judge Marco Hernandez dismissed Cox’s counterclaims and denied Cox’s right to due process though Plaintiff had clearly violated Cox’s legal and constitutional rights. Cox had a legal right to counterclaims and was denied. ( See Docket Entry 44 Obsidian v. Cox)

No Counter Defendants were ever docketed by Judge Marco Hernandez, Cox alleges deliberately in order to cover up corruption in Portland Oregon.

On 5-11-2012, 6 months after Obsidian v. Cox’s trial and a $2.5 Million Judgement in favor of Plaintiff against Cox, Tonkon Torp Lawyer David Aman filed a fraudulent complaint and demand for a jury trial (though one already happened in this case) against a third party, Eliot Bernstein, alleging that Bernstein was involved in fraud, hindering a judgement, and actual intent in some alleged scheme for Cox to hide alleged assets. The trial was long over and there was only one Defendant for the 1.5 years prior, which was Crystal Cox. Cox alleges that Tonkon Torp named Eliot Bernstein in order to further discredit the reporting of Cox which also involved the company Bernstein founded, which is iViewit Technology.

Tonkon Torp was involved in the Enron Bankruptcy. Enron went bankrupt due to Proskauer Rose’s alleged illegal activity over the stolen iViewit Technology invented by Eliot Bernstein,  which Enron had invested in. Tonkon Torp had motive to discredit Eliot Bernstein.

In a manner of  extreme discrimination, defamation and slander, without legality, Judge Marco Hernandez immediately docketed Eliot Bernstein as a Defendant in this case, which shows up clearly to this day as Eliot Bernstein as a named Defendant in a $2.5 Million Judgement. For 2 years this has caused Bernstein irreparable harm and has prejudiced Bernstein in other courts, judicial processes and has cause Bernstein and his family undo harm, retaliation, hate, lawsuits, duress and immeasurable damage.

This slanderous action allowed and aided by Judge Marco Hernandez is also a docketed incident in other cases at this time.

This grave infringement on Eliot Bernstein's rights has now been named IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION, Page 70, Case No. 13-cv-03643

and in

U.S. District Court Southern Division of New York, ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, et al.,  Plaintiffs, -against- APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, et al.,  Case No. 1:07-cv-11196-SAS, Related Case No. 1:07-cv-09599-SAS,  NOTICE OF MOTION TO RE-OPEN  BASED ON FRAUD ON THE COURT  AND MORE, Page 56 through page 81.

Judge Marco Hernandez has acted outside of the law and constitutional rights of Crystal Cox and those she has reported on such as the world’s largest technology theft, the theft of the iViewit Technology, inventor Eliot Bernstein who Cox has been reporting on for 4 years.

4.) On July 7th, 2011 Cox was finally told what Blog Post she was being sued for, by that time she was headed to trial, with a trial date and all. Cox moved for Anti-SLAPP and was DENIED by Judge Marco Hernandez, he ruled that it was not timely, yet Cox had just found out what blog posts that Plaintiff had issue of, was never asked to remove the post, which violates Oregon Retraction Laws.

Document 26, Filed 07/07/11 was an Order on motion for partial summary judgment.

5.) On July 22nd, 2011,  Plaintiff adds even more blog posts, yet Cox was not asked to retract posts nor even having a right to know which blog posts she was sued for 10 Million Dollars for. Cox was unlawfully denied the use of Anti-SLAPP Laws and Oregon’s retraction laws which clearly did and do apply to Crystal Cox’s thousands of blogs posts as a “medium of communication”.

On 8-23-2011, Docket Entry 31,  Judge Marco Hernandez granted Pro Se Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  a Summary Judgement of which she did not ask for, nor had Cox been advised to if this was in her best interest. Cox had no rights in this Ruling. Cox had not been told blog posts she was sued over, then when Cox was told, she was Denied Oregon Retraction laws, and denied Anti-SLAPP Laws, both unconstitutionally and outside of law, Cox alleges.

This motion ended with the following; “The Court will promptly set a telephone scheduling conference to establish a case schedule for trial. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 23rd day of August , 2011”.  Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  was let to believe that this was a bench trial, Cox was duped. Cox moves this court to order that Tonkon Torp law firm pay Cox for irreparable harm caused to Cox by deliberate actions of Tonkon Torp Law Firm that clearly were outside of law.

No motion was filed Demanding a Jury Trial, yet COX was FORCED to have a Jury Trial. This has caused Cox irreparable harm. As David Aman, unlawfully, unethically manipulated the jury by using a forced deposition of Cox incriminating herself from the day before as Ordered off the record by Judge Marco Hernandez to talk about her s****.>

Also the hearing, the day before the trial, Judge Hernandez was asked by Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox , as the record shows, if David Aman was allowed, as a matter of law to introduce the email that Aman alleged was extortion. Hernandez said it was not admissible, yet Obsidian Finance Group Attorney, David Aman entered the email into the jury in the closing statement and coerced them, outside of law that Cox was a criminal and therefore they ruled $500,000 more against Cox then even asked, as Aman had manipulated them with false facts and erroneous evidence.

Having a Jury trial instead of a bench trial, has caused Cox irreparable harm and Cox moves this court to remove Hernandez and to issue sanctions upon Tonkon Torp Law Firm for this clear and obvious violation of law and local rules. Sanctions that reward Cox with monetary compensation for massive irreparable harm to Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox .

On 10-18-2011, Judge Marco Hernandez Dismissed Cox’s Counter Claim. Cox has a lawful right to and legitimate counter claims. Cox moves this court to allow Cox to have a counter claim in this case, as his her lawful right.

On November 18th, 2011, Judge Marco Hernandez claimed to be ordering an FBI investigation as to the collusion between David Aman and Sean Boushie to intimidate Crystal Cox, Defendant in a Federal Case, yet Judge Marco Hernandez DID not order this investigation.

Law, Regarding Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox ’s right to REMOVE Judge Marco Hernandez and to have a fair and impartial judge ruling on Defendant’s Case.

The Court of Appeals takes fraud on the court very serious, see CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen, 81, yet Judge Hernandez witnessed and engaged in fraud on the court with and connected to Judge Michael Simon (formerly an attorney at Perkins Coi involved in over 30 Million in Umpqua Bank lawsuits related to the Summit Bankruptcy)

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  moves this court to remove Judge Hernandez under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 & 144 laws and codes.

According to, Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law, Second Edition, Charles Gardner Geyh, Associate Dean of Research, John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, a Federal Judicial Center Publication;

"For centuries, impartiality has been a defining feature of the Anglo-American judge’s role in the administration of justice. The reason is clear: in a constitutional order grounded in the rule of law, it is imperative that judges make decisions according to law, unclouded by personal bias or conflicts of interest. Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez is not without conflict and has NOT acted impartial nor fair and equitable in regard to Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox , and her constitutional and due process rights, as a matter of LAW.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  has a right to a fair and impartial trial.

Accordingly, upon ascending the bench, every federal judge takes an oath to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties” of judicial office; and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth  Amendment to the United States Constitution has been construed to guarantee litigants the right to a “neutral and detached,” or impartial, judge.  

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  has a Fourteenth  Amendment to a “neutral and detached,” or impartial, judge.  The record CLEARLY shows that Judge Marco Hernandez has not acted as if and is NOT a “neutral and detached,” or impartial, judge in regard to Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  and Plaintiff Obsidian Finance Group and all related legal, politically and financially issues related.

Moreover, in a democratic republic in which the legitimacy of government depends on the consent and approval  of the governed, public confidence in the administration of justice is indispensable. It is not enough that judges be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges therefore admonishes judges to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” and to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”

 When the impartiality of a judge is in doubt, the appropriate remedy is to disqualify that judge from hearing further proceedings in the matter.  

 In  Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., a case  concerning disqualification of a state supreme court justice, the U.S.  Supreme Court reaffirmed that litigants have a due process right to an impartial judge, and that under circumstances in which judicial bias was probable, due process required disqualification. The Court noted, however, that disqualification rules may be and often are more rigorous than the Due Process Clause requires. So it is with disqualification requirements for federal judges, which require disqualification when a judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned."

Disqualification Under 28 U.S.C. § 455

A. Overview

1. The text of § 455 The primary source of disqualification law in the federal  judicial system is 28 U.S.C. § 455. It provides, in its entirety, as follows:

§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter incontroversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the  personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household. 10 Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law 

(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:

(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;

(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;

(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;

(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that  holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;

(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;

(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;

 (iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest”

in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.

 (e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.

 (f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a  fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

 Sections (a) and (b) occupy the core of § 455 and should be read together. The two sections divide the universe of disqualification into two halves: the general, catch-all category of  § 455(a), which requires disqualification from any proceeding in which a judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned”; and a list of more specific grounds for disqualification in § (b).

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  has reason to “question the impartiality of Judge Marco Hernandez and moves this court to REMOVE / Recluse Judge Marco Hernandez.

 The remainder of § 455 is directed at implementing §§ (a) and (b):

 Section (a) compels disqualification for the appearance of partiality, while § (b) “also” compels disqualification for bias, financial interest, and other specific grounds. In contrast, the Model Code of Judicial Conduct—after which § 455 was originally modeled—and the current Code of Conduct for United States Judges unify the two halves conceptually by characterizing the specific grounds for disqualification as a nonexclusive subset of circumstances in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

 For the most part, this may be a distinction without a difference—disqualification is required if the specific or general provisions are triggered, regardless of whether the specific provisions are characterized as a subset of or separate from the general. On the other hand, by onceptualizing them separately,  § 455 can require disqualification under specific circumstances enumerated in § (b) that might not reasonably be characterized as calling a judge’s impartiality into question under  § (a). For example,  § (b)(4) requires judges to disqualify themselves for financial interest “however small,” which necessarily includes an interest so small that it could not reasonably call the judge’s impartiality into question.

 Any circumstance in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under § (a) requires disqualification, even if the circumstance is not enumerated in § 455(b).

 At the same time, when § 455(b) identifies a particular situation requiring disqualification, it will tend to control any § 455(a) analysis with respect to that specific situation. For example,  § 455(b)(5) requires disqualification when one of the parties is within the third degree of relationship to the judge. Consequently, a fourth-degree relationship to a party does not  by itself  create an appearance of partiality requiring disqualification under  § 455(a) — although disqualification under  § 455(a) might still be appropriate if, for example, the judge’s personal relationship with the fourth-degree relative was so close as to call the judge’s

impartiality into question. As the Supreme Court explained, “[s]ection 455(b)(5), which addresses the matter of relationship specifically, ends the disability at the  thirddegree of relationship, and that should obviously govern for purposes of § 455(a) as well.”

 The 1974 amendments to  § 455, however, shifted the balance by requiring disqualification whenever a judge’s impartiality “might” reasonably be questioned, and the legislative history made clear that in revising the statute, Congress sought to end the “duty to sit.”

 “When Congress amended § 455(a), it made clear that judges should apply an objective standard in determining whether to disqualify.  A judge contemplating disqualification under  § 455(a), then, should not ask whether he or she believes he or she is capable of impartially presiding over the case. Rather, the question is whether a judge’s impartiality might be questioned from the perspective of a reasonable person, and every circuit has adopted some version of the “reasonable person” standard to answer this question.

 In the context of denying a motion for his disqualification from  Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Justice Scalia noted that this reasonable person is aware “of all the surrounding facts and circumstances.” The Second Circuit has characterized the reasonable person as an “objective, disinterested observer” who is privy to full knowledge of the surrounding circumstances.”

 ...

 “The question has sometimes arisen as to whether the standard for disqualification differs in a bench trial where the judge’s role is even more pivotal than in a jury trial. In  Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., the  court of  appeals said: “We cannot overlook the fact that this is a non-jury case, and that [the judge] will be deciding each and every substantive issue at trial . . . . When the judge is the actual trier of fact, the need to preserve the appearance of impartiality is especially pronounced”

 Judge Marco Hernandez is the deciding the issues of this case, this is, even more reason that Judge Marco Hernandez ensure Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox of her non-bias, or conflict.  Judge Marco Hernandez has previously REFUSED to admit or deny conflict in this case, though requested by Pro Se Litigant Crystal Cox on several occasions.

 Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox intends to file also intend to file complaints with the Attorney General, Department of Justice and the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, at some future point in time.

Regarding Judge Marco Hernandez accusing Cox of a Extortionate Behavior ( a Felony) in an official ORDER to DENY Cox a new trial, in a very high profile CIVIL Case.

Investigative Blogger 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. Yet Judge Hernandez DENIED Cox a new trial and took a potshot at Cox that has ruined her life and branded her an extortionist, knowing full well that EXTORTION or a “tasty sum” to retract was in no way a material factor in Obsidian v. Cox.

Cox was never “determined” by any court to have posted allegation, then sought a retraction, then continued posting and was sued. Cox alleges Judge Marco Hernandez violated her constitutional rights in alleging, alluding to criminal activity by Cox.

And has therefore criminally defamed Cox and has the whole world believing Cox to be a criminal as per the outcome of a CIVIL CASE.

Cox alleges that it is not fair, ethical, equitable in rights, constitutional, nor appropriate as a matter of law and rules of procedure for Judge Marco Hernandez to painted Cox out to be an extortionist in a denial for a new trial ruling in a VERY high profile First Amendment Case, especially after Judge Marco Hernandez stated that Cox had not been accused of extortion as per page 16 of the hearing transcripts the day before the Obsidian v. Cox Trial.

Investigative Blogger Crystal 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 of reporter and rogue attorneys as adjudicated fact, and use that as justification to take pot shots at Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  and convince the world and other Judges in other cases, such as her Ninth Circuit appeal to then believe that Cox was Extortionist.

In fact Judge Marco Hernandez’s ruling denying Cox a new trial and subsequently accusing Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  of extortionate behavior was used by reporter David Carr in a New York times article in which was hearsay by a journalist and unadjudicated facts by Judge Marco Hernandez in a ruling that was not about extortion,

If David Aman, attorney for the Plaintiff convinced Judge Marco Hernandez that Cox was guilty of extortion, in private communication that pro se Cox was not privileged or notified of, well then Judge Marco Hernandez should have contacted the authorities, filed a criminal complaint, gave Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  due process as a matter of law, then and only then, used those findings as FACT, adjudicated fact and thus used those adjudicated facts in his official court ruling that convinced the world that Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  had engaged in extortionate behavior.

Ninth Circuit Judges then used David Carr’s New York Times article, hearsay, as adjudicated fact and took an unlawful, unconstitutional, outrageously unethical pot shot, defamatory and slanderous attack on anti-corruption blogger Crystal Cox and accused her of having a history of posting online then seeking a payment to retract of which Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  has never EVER done, nor has there ever been adjudicated evidence to this allegation, or even a criminal complaint of any kind.

If Judge Marco Hernandez believed Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  to have a history of extortionate or blackmailing conduct, then it is his duty as public servants to order a criminal investigation by the proper authorities and it is NOT his duty, nor legal right to simply, flat out accuse Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  of extortionate behavior.  And thereby defame and slander Cox and put her under extreme prejudice as she headed to her esteemed Ninth Circuit appeal.

Bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists like Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox , face extreme prejudice in the courts, as they are oftentimes exposing judges, attorneys and people in powerful positions such as CEO’s and Politicians. Cox alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez used extreme prejudice, discrimination and conflicts of interest to rule outside of law and violate the rights of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox .

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  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.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez stating arbitrary, unadjudicated allegations and accusations in an authoritative court opinion, will potentially chill the online speech of all bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists. As they will fear the same thing happening to them. Judge Marco Hernandez, in a motion to deny Cox a new trial, convinced the world that Cox was GUILTY OF extortion, a felony crime of which she was NOT on trial for.

This is a critical first amendment issue. And a critical issue of due process laws, the fourteenth amendment, civil rights and human rights.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that she has a constitutional right to due process in the criminal justice system and that it violated her constitutional rights for Judge Marco Hernandez 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. Cox moves this court to report and punish Judge Marco Hernandez for these actions and prevent Judge Marco Hernandez from further harming Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  in Obsidian v. Cox by removing Judge Marco Hernandez from this case.

These accusations and insinuations by Judge Marco Hernandez prejudiced Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  in her Ninth Circuit appeal and essentially all matters of her life and put her under extreme hate and attack for years.

The public at large deems to this court to be of the utmost authority, and Judge Marco Hernandez accusing Cox of criminal activities, of extortionate behavior, essentially convinced the world, and all without Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  being given due process as a matter of law for the crimes she was accused of, painted out to have committed. This is a violation of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox ’s rights of due process and constitutional rights.

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. It is against the LAW.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  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. Judge Hernandez VIOLATED Cox’s due process rights, as a matter of law.

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 Obsidian v. Cox case in regard to the accusations and insinuations of criminal activity by Judge Marco Hernandez.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  alleges that ALL Judges must have “Clear and Convincing Proof” beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE they are, by law allowed to state such allegations in a court ruling.

Investigative Blogger Crystal 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", no “tasty sum” sought to remove allegations, as a material factor of Obsidian v. Cox nor a factor in this case whatsoever, therefore it was not a matter of record and cannot legally or ethically be thrown into a ruling as unadjudicated fact, rumor and hearsay, and in complete life ruining violation of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox .

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.

Investigative Blogger Crystal 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.

After Judge Hernandez stated that Cox had engaged in extortionate behavior in his denial of a new trial ruling, Cox then lost all business, ability to get a job, ability to rent a home, lost family connections, friends and was penniless, homeless and left without any rights or recourse.

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. Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  was not given due process, and was simply ruled guilty of criminal activities, without 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 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  was not given due process in the criminal justice system nor has Investigative Blogger Crystal 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. And they did this based on hearsay and rumors advanced by Judge Marco Hernandez.

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.

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 Investigative Blogger Crystal 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.

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.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  was deprived of these rights, as Judge Marco Hernandez portrayed to the world that 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.

Judges, such as Judge Marco Hernandez, 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, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case.

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.

Judge Marco Hernandez is not above the law and SHOULD be removed from this case, as per the constitutional and legal rights of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox .

I, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox believe Judge Marco Hernandez has had private chamber meetings, phone calls, emails and communications with Attorney Marc J. Randazza and Attorney David Aman that caused me irrevocable harm..

Upon my knowledge and belief, Judge Marco Hernandez accused me of criminal activity in a motion to deny a new trial and stripped me of my rights to due process, civil rights, human right and constitutional rights. This motion was picked up by big media and used to ruin my life, though Extortion was no part of my trial.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  appears in this action "In Propria Persona" and asks that her points and authorities relied upon herein, and issues raised herein, must be addressed "on the merits" and not simply on her Pro Se Status.

Oftentimes courts do not take Pro Se Litigants serious. I, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  wish to be taken serious and to not have my allegation dismissed.

"Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings." Plaskey v CIA, 953 F .2nd 25. The Court granted such leniency, or “liberal construction,” to pro se pleadings against the backdrop of Conley v. Gibson’s undemanding “no set of facts” standard. ( See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (“[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”), abrogated by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561-63 (2007).

The Court’s failure to explain how pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. ( See Bacharach & Entzeroth, supra note 7, at 29-30 (asserting that because the Supreme Court never defined the “degree of relaxation” afforded pro se pleadings in comparison to the liberal notice pleading standard applicable to all litigants, lower courts adopted different iterations of the rule).  ~ .. indicates its belief that the standard was already lenient enough to render a detailed articulation of the practice unnecessary to prevent premature dismissal  of meritorious cases. However, with Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly ( 550 U.S. 544 (2007). and Ashcroft v. Iqbal ( 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) retiring the “no set of facts” standard and ratifying the means by which lower courts dismissed more disfavored cases under Conley, ( See generally Richard L. Marcus, The Revival of Fact Pleading Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 86 COLUM. L. REV. 433, 435-37 (1986) (explaining how the reemergence of fact pleading resulted from lower courts’ refusals to accept conclusory allegations as sufficient under the Federal Rules in particular categories of suits).

.. liberal construction as presently practiced is not—if it ever was—sufficient to protect pro se litigants’ access to courts. The new plausibility standard ( See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (requiring a complaint to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”).. with which courts now determine the adequacy of complaints disproportionately harms pro se litigants.  ( See Patricia W. Hatamyar, The Tao of Pleading: Do Twombly and Iqbal Matter Empirically?, 59 AM. U. L. REV. 553, 615 (2010) (observing a substantially greater increase in the rate of dismissal of pro se suits than represented suits post-Iqbal).

 “Pro se complaint[s], ‘however inartfully pleaded,’ [are] held to ‘less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. ( Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam)).

 HAINES v. KERNER, ET AL. 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652. Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by Defendant, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944).

 ESTELLE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL. v. GAMBLE 29 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251. We now consider whether respondent's complaint states a cognizable 1983 claim. The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed. As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id., at 520-521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)

 BALDWIN COUNTY WELCOME CENTER v. BROWN 466 U.S. 147, 104 S. Ct. 1723, 80 L. Ed. 2d 196, 52 U.S.L.W. 3751. Rule 8(f) provides that " pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice." We frequently have stated that pro se pleadings are to be given a liberal construction.

 Both the right to proceed pro se and liberal pleading standards reflect the modern civil legal system’s emphasis on protecting access to courts. ( See, e.g., Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Few issues . . . are more significant than pleading standards, which are the key that opens access to courts.”); Drew A. Swank, In Defense of Rules and Roles: The Need to Curb Extreme Forms of Pro Se Assistance and Accommodation in Litigation, 54 AM. U. L. REV. 1537, 1546 (2005) (noting that “[o]pen access to the courts for all citizens” is one of the principles upon which the right to prosecute one’s own case is founded).

 Self-representation has firm roots in the notion that all individuals, no matter their status or wealth, are entitled to air grievances for which they may be entitled to relief.  ( See Swank, supra note 1, at 1546 (discussing the importance of self-representation to the fundamental precept of equality before the law).

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  move this court to Disqualify Judge Marco Hernandez from any RULINGS, Opinions, Official Judgement Regarding Oregon Civil No. CV 11-0057 HZ from this time forward.

 With This Motion for Judicial Disqualification, I, Pro Se Crystal L. Cox move this court to remove, recluse, disqualify Judge Marco Hernandez from any proceedings regarding Pro Se Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox

 Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox  Moves this court to file a lien against Judge Marco Hernandez’s bond as Cox has lost everything she knew to be her life for over 3 years due to the unlawful, unethical, unconstitutional and clear judicial canon violations of Judge Marco Hernandez and Cox had a right to a financial judgement, or whatever justice this court deems fair and equitable.

 As a matter of Law, Courts cannot interfere with Contract Law. It is clear that Obsidian Finance Group had a Contract with Summit Accomodators / the Principals of Summit 1031 Exchange, Contract Law is clear and the contract between Obsidian Finance Group and Summit supersedes a Judicial Order to place Kevin Padrick as the Trustee.

 The violations of law in this case are clear and this court should call for an investigation into ALL aspects of the Summit Bankruptcy, as a matter of public duty.

 Kevin Padrick did not declare in his trustee statement that he had prior contracts with Summit and clear conflicts of interest in working for the debtor and was therefore legally an insider, and in bankruptcy code, an “insider” is not allowed to be a Trustee.

 And in the Tax Code, in a 1031 Exchange Company a legally defined “insider” is not a “qualified intermediary”. Thus Cox claimed and still claims Tax Fraud and Bankruptcy Code Violations, as well as violations of Contract Law per contracts that Obsidian had with Summit. This court knows enough to order an investigation in the Summit Bankruptcy yet has not, Cox alleges this is to protect corruption in Portland Oregon.

 The court cannot interfere with contract law, yet Judge Randall Dunn ruled that Kevin Padrick be appointed Trustee which was in clear opposition to the best interest of the Creditors and violated contract law.

 Judge Marco Hernandez, knows that Kevin Padrick broke the LAW, alleges COX. And Cox alleges that he is protecting Perkins Coie mainly, and Judge Michael Simon.

 The TRUTH is Kevin Padrick was not LEGALLY able to be the TRUSTEE as a MATTER OF LAW. Therefore the Summit Bankruptcy should be VOID, started over and Kevin Padrick and all his co-conspirators such as Judge Randall Dunn, DOJ Trustee Pamela Griffith, Tonkon Torp’s Leon Simpson, and Perkins Coie Steven Hedberg SHOULD all go to JAIL.

 It is a BLATANT Fact that Kevin Padrick did not declare in his trustee statement that he had prior contracts with Summit and clear conflicts of interest in working for the debtor and was therefore legally an insider, and in bankruptcy code, an “insider” is not allowed to be a Trustee. And a fact per the record that a TRUSTEE was NOT in the best interest of the creditors PERIOD.

 This court knows that Kevin Padrick violated the rights of the Summit Principals and harmed Creditors and Investors, yet this court does NOTHING, and  the Summit Principals are in jail, set up by their financial advisor Obsidian Finance Group, and aided and abetted by Judge Michael Simon, Judge Randall Dunn, Judge Ann Aiken, and Judge Marco Hernandez, alleges Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox . Cox moves this court to report these bankruptcy code violations to the U.S. Trustee Office and the Department of Justice.