Bloggers Have Same First Amendment Protections as Traditional Journalists – HRO vs Evavold Should Be Dismissed

This ruling should be a clear reminder to misguided attorneys, corporations, developers or those with affluence to cease bullying or intimidating those who report the issues of the day.” ~ Choon James

The purpose of the free press clause of the First Amendment was to keep an eye on people in power and maintain a check on corruption.

Given the cutbacks in traditional media, bloggers have taken up the slack, serving as watchdogs — with attitude…Yet we still see an uninformed attitude from some lawmakers and judges who seem not to understand that digital and social media deserve the same respect as newspapers, magazines and broadcasters. ” ~ Ken Paulson, USA Today: Bloggers have rights, too: Column

IMG_2953

The Crystal Cox lawsuit is a landmark court case that defines, and upholds, the 1st Amendment protections of bloggers.. and is relevant when considering the recent HRO issued against Dede Evavold – blogging is an exercise of protected speech and does NOT constitute ‘harassment’!

Judge Karen Asphaug violated the 1st Amendment Rights of Dede Evavold by issuing a harassment restraining order against her that constrains, and censors, her exercise of free speech. A court cannot issue an order that violates the Constitutional rights of a party; as such the HRO issued by Judge Asphaug is void and should be immediately dismissed.

Dede writes about the HRO: “Most of you are aware of the fact that I was maliciously prosecuted and falsely convicted in the State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Evavold Case No.19HA-CR-15-4227.

There were several conditions beyond state sentencing guidelines imposed on me. However, the one condition that numerous attorneys and rank and file citizens are most amazed by is the restriction on my first amendment right to free speech (Judge Asphaug ordered that I may NOT reference the family involved in this case  on any social media)

As previously reported, I filed a witness tampering complaint against the petitioner in 2016. I had received a harassing and threatening extortion letter from petitioner’s attorney to intimidate me into deleting this blog and coerce me into changing not only my plea but to coerce me into changing my testimony in Sandra’s case. Also,  petitioner coerced and intimidated his daughter into recanting her testimony which led to the addition of 4 more felony charges against me.

Once again, the petitioner is violating the law by: retaliating against a person who was summoned as a witnes..”  For more info on the Evavold HRO please read: When We Lose Free Speech-We Lose Everything

CONSIDER THIS….

Court: Bloggers Have Same First Amendment Protections as Traditional Journalists

(Source: Slate, Daniel Politi, 1/18/2014)

“A blogger—and, really, the public at large—has the same protections for free speech in the United State as a traditional journalist and can only lose a defamation lawsuit on an issue of public concern if plaintiffs manage to prove negligence.

In a ruling that may come as a surprise to many bloggers who probably didn’t even realize this was even a question, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Crystal Cox, a blogger who had lost a defamation lawsuit in 2011 over a blog post that accused an Oregon bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group of fraud, reports the Associated Press. A jury had awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million.

 

To be precise, the Ninth Circuit concludes that all who speak to the public, whether or not they are members of the institutional press, are equally protected by the First Amendment,’ writes Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox.”

 

__________________________________________

Confirmed: Bloggers Have First Amendment Rights as Corporate Media

(Source: Huff Post, ‘The Blog’. Choon James, 1/24/2014)

“On January 17, 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Crystal L. Cox from Eureka, Montana who was sued by for defamation by Kevin Padrick, an attorney and his company – Obsidian Finance Group, LLC. Cox had written posts exposing fraud, corruption, money-laundering and so forth…
This ruling should be a clear reminder to misguided attorneys, corporations, developers or those with affluence to cease bullying or intimidating those who report the issues of the day.

Many concerned citizens have no choice but to create their own blogs and websites to level the playing field in this blossoming social media warfare.

The government has its plentiful public relations specialists, paid for by taxpayers. Corporations and special interests have their hired PR consultants. There are hired mercenaries who feel no qualms about spinning the facts. News media can be bought or controlled by big money or shut down.

It’s not uncommon for the public to read articles or watch the TV news only to lament the irregularities or inadequate reporting. Oftentimes, critical issues are shunned or ignored by corporate media because of entwined relationships.

Bloggers with information or have intimate experiences and understanding of issues are critically needed now, more than ever.

Blog away!”

_________________________________

Court Says Bloggers are Journalists Too

(Source: Law Street, Anneliese Mahoney, 1/21/2014)

Last week, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the same standards that apply to journalists in print media also apply to bloggers and anyone else. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press member Gregg Leslie said, ‘it’s not a special right to the news media. So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others.’

The case came from a Montana blogger named Crystal L. Cox….

The Court stated,

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable.” They went on to cite cases in which individual speakers have been granted First Amendment rights, despite not being a part of the established press. For example, the First Amendment rights of authors have often been protected, regardless of their training, background, or affiliations.

This is very good news for anyone who has a blog or even a desire to post things in an individual capacity on their social network…”

39580866-office-wallpapers

Public Domain Image

Advertisements

REVELATION: Dawn of Global Government

New documentary film featuring Charlie Daniels: Exposes fall of American sovereignty Infowars.com

 

Looming world government, a world “elite”, The United Nations…loss of American sovereignty! The light of our “shining city on the hill” dims. Dissecting America under judgment, Lieutenant General William Boykin and Alex Jones join Charlie Daniels in a primer for the uninitiated on The New World Order with Biblical perspective. The global feudal police state unfolds…We were born for such a time as this!

EMMER CONTINUES TO SHOW TRUE COLORS

Tom Emmer lurches left, Who’s influencing the Congressman?

Representative Tom Emmer via his Facebook page

Editorial boards from Minnesota newspapers have praised freshman Congressman Tom Emmer for going rogue.  By bucking his conservative base and providing a more moderate course for the state’s 6th district, Emmer’s becoming a Democrat’s Republican, but the conversion leaves questions in the minds of Republican voters who elected him just eight months ago.  In a non-scientific Facebook poll, Alpha News found that 49% were not satisfied with the performance of Congressman Emmer, 26% were satisfied and another 25% were undecided.  Of those who responded, 59% said they voted for Emmer and 38% did not.  When asked if they believed if Emmer was doing a better job than Michele Bachmann, 24% said Yes, 56% said No, and 20% were undecided.

Continue Reading: http://alphanewsmn.com/tom-emmer-lurches-left-whos-influencing-the-congressman/


AJ-Emmer
 CLICK TO VIEW

AJ KERN FOR CONGRESS

NATURAL LAW AND JUSTICE

Activist Post

Happy 4th Of July! Independence Is Individual

By Rosanne LindsayNYC-Liberty1

“How few of us have made our individual declaration of independence, and until we do that, we are not free.”– Edwin Manners

The Declaration of Independence reminds us,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

When governments ignore the will of the people and “go rogue” for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, it is time to understand that our system derives from our free will and consent.

 There are two systems representing the polarity existing on Planet Earth. Under the Polarity Principle everything has poles or pairs of opposite charge:

  • One belief system says that a human being is separate from all others, designed to control others when they cannot or do not reason for themselves. This belief derives from man-made written codes that must be learned.
  • Another belief system says that each human is a cell of the collective web, and that all humans are connected as one entity, one interconnected humanity. This belief derives from Natural Law. Natural Law is not written, but intuitive and knowable by simple observation, reason, and deduction. ‘By your action, ye shall be known.’

Natural Law and Justice is, and always has been, the primary fundamental force in the universe. It is a body of Universal Spiritual Laws which governs consciousness. Under Natural Law, we choose our governing system based on free will. Everything is presented as an offer to contract and it is always up to each of us to consent or not. Silence is acquiescence. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Continue Reading: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/07/happy-4th-of-july-independence-is-individual.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActivistPost+%28Activist+Post%29

Further Erosion of the Fourth Amendment

FBI TO LEGALLY READ ALL EMAILS

Completely ignoring the Fourth Amendment, the feds once again expand the surveillance state

The FBI will soon be legally reading anyone’s emails without the disintegrating protection of the Fourth Amendment or the issuance of a warrant.

Facebook Bans Conservatives For Complaining About Censorship

Social media giant back to its old ways despite much heralded meeting with conservatives

The ban came after a post was removed which merely argued that Donald Trump was not anti-Muslim.

Lauren 2

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading: http://_wp_link_placeholderhttp://www.infowars.com/facebook-bans-conservatives-for-complaining-about-censorship/

 

 

Forcing the Innocent to Plead Guilty, an American Disgrace

Amaury Villalobos and William Vasquez reacted after their exonerations in a 1980 Brooklyn arson case. From left, Adele Bernhard, a lawyer, with Mr. Villalobos; Rita Dave, a lawyer, with Mr. Vasquez; and the widow of Raymond Mora, a third defendant who was cleared, Janet Mora, and their daughter, Eileen Mora. (photo: Pearl Gabel/NYT)

By John Kiriakou, Reader SupportedNews

19 April 16

 record 149 people had their criminal convictions overturned in 2015 after courts found they had been wrongly charged, according to a recent study. Nearly 4 in 10 of those exonerated had been convicted of murder, and the average newly-released prisoner had served more than 14 years in prison. Most of the exonerations came in only two states, Texas and New York. The National Registry of Exonerations, a project of the University of Michigan Law School, found that there have been 1,733 exonerations since 1989, with the total doubling since 2011. More than two-thirds of last year’s exonerees were minorities. Five had been sentenced to death.

There is a reason why most of the exonerations have come from two locales. District attorneys in Brooklyn, New York, and Harris County, Texas, have begun long-term reviews of questionable convictions, actions that are being watched by prosecutors and defense attorneys across the country. With 156 death row exonerations since 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, this is a problem that must be addressed.

The National Registry of Exonerations report stated further that 42 of those exonerated in 2015 had pleaded guilty, a glaring indication that the current system of seeking plea bargains simply isn’t just. Indeed, Propublica found that 98.2 percent of all federal cases end in conviction, with nearly all of those a result of plea deals.

Why would an innocent person take a plea? Really, there is no alternative. First, the government uses a technique called “charge stacking.” Have you committed an actual crime? Be prepared for multiple charges, including a lot of “throwaway charges,” like obstruction of justice or making a false statement. In addition, the government will likely levy multiple charges against you for the same crime.

The point is not necessarily to convict you on everything, although prosecutors are perfectly happy to do that. The point is that prosecutors will eventually offer you a deal. Take a plea to one count and the others will be dismissed. It’s a negotiating ploy. But for the accused, the question is this: Even if you are innocent, should you take a plea and do a couple of years in prison or should you try your luck at trial, knowing that almost no defendant wins in court? Almost everybody takes the deal.

After I blew the whistle on the CIA’s torture program, the Justice Department charged me with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. I had confirmed the name of a former CIA colleague to a reporter who wanted to interview him for a book. The name was never made public, but I shouldn’t have done it. Still, I had no criminal intent and there was no harm to the national security.

But that didn’t matter. The government added three espionage charges, as well as a charge of making a false statement. They threatened additional charges of making a false statement and obstruction of justice. Of course, I hadn’t committed espionage. Nor had I made any false statements. But that didn’t matter. Why risk a trial when you can just force a defendant to take a plea?

In the end, I took a plea to the initial charge. Everything else was dismissed. I was sentenced to 30 months in a federal prison. If I had gone to trial and had been found guilty, I was looking at 45 years. Realistically, I would have been sentenced to 18-24 years. Either way, I would have likely died in prison.

That happens every day in America. So it should be no surprise that innocent people are in prison as a result of pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit. The work of the Brooklyn and Harris County district attorneys should be lauded. But innocent men and women shouldn’t have to rely on the isolated prosecutor with a conscience for justice. Justice should mean justice.


John Kiriakou is an Associate Fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. He is a former CIA counterterrorism operations officer and former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.