Tuesday, January 8, 2013

In Obsidian V. Cox, Crystal L. Cox Claimed that David Aman had Defamed her by making FALSE Allegations and Flat out Lying in Legal Briefs. Judge Marco Hernandez DENIED This Claim saying it was "Absolute Privilege" and Because it was in a Federal Court Filing, it is NOT Defamation or Unlawful to then Share these Legal Briefings, Say by Sending them to "Media" or Posting to Internet Sites, such as David Aman Did.

Plaintiff Obsidian Finance Group accused Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox of crimes, of fraud, of personal gain and all kinds of false, defamatory, and even inflammatory to the public information, based on no real fact.  Turns out in a complaint you can say whatever you like, then it is a federal filing. One that is picked up by the Blogosphere, used in other legal briefs and commentary and can be broadcast around the world no matter if it is true or not.

Judge Marco Hernandez called it "Absolute Privilege", and therefore David Aman, Plaintiff for Opposing Counsel could make whatever claim or allegation he wanted, even if a Flat Out Lie, and there was nothing I could do about it being picked up, and spread world wide.

Once a case is filed, and no matter what the Complaint or internal documents say, well its now public domain and is immune from lawsuits, according to Judge Marco Hernandez.  My counter claim included accusations that this case defamed me, and the judge in this case quoted this law as the reason is because it is a judicial proceeding therefore there is Absolute Privilege in the information that is on the Internet regarding it..

This is the Case that the Judge in this Case Quoted to deny my defamation counter claim.

" Wallulis v. Dymowski, 323 Or. 337, 348, 918 P.2d 755, 761 (1996) (statements made in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged); Wollam v. Brandt, 154 Or. App. 156, 162 n.5, 961 P.2d 219, 222 n. 5 (1998) (absolute privilege applies not only to defamation action, but "to any tort action based on statements made in connection with a judicial proceeding").  "

"Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).

"Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defence in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent."

Stay Tuned for ALL Documents, Lots of Exhibits, Injunctions, and More Filed Court Documents in State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL.

No comments:

Post a Comment