(2) Numerous parties in the bankruptcy case had objected to Padrick's fees--Records show that various parties to the Summit bankruptcy had filed an objection to the fees being charged by Padrick, Obsidian, and their law firm, Tonkon Torp. At the time the objection was filed, Padrick and associates had charged $992,231.22 for his services as trustee. The objection states this was an average of $185,000 a month and could wind up with a total of $11.1 million over the expected five-year term of the case.
The reporters from Forbes and The Times interviewed Padrick, but neither apparently asked him about the fees he was charging in the Summit bankruptcy. Neither asked about his clear conflict of interest. Were Forbes and The Times mainly interested in knocking a citizen journalist for investigating the kind of touchy subjects that the mainstream press largely has abandoned? In other words, do the mainstream critiques of Cox' work come with a heavy dose of sour grapes?
U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez
Judge Hernandez made numerous questionable rulings leading up to the jury verdict against Cox, and these stand out:
(1) Cox role as a journalist--Hernandez found that Cox was not protected by Oregon's shield law because she did not qualify as a journalist under the law. Specifically, Hernandez found that Cox, as a blogger, was not engaged in a "medium of communication," as defined by the law. Here is what the Oregon shield law says on the subject:
"Medium of communication" has its ordinary meaning and includes, but is not limited to, any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.
Hernandez ruled that Cox was not engaged in any of the listed media. But the law clearly states that the definition of media "is not limited to" those that are listed. The judge almost certainly screwed up here.
(2) The bankruptcy case was not a matter of public concern--Cox raised First Amendment protections by asserting the Summit bankruptcy was a matter of public concern. In a finding that defies all logic, Hernandez ruled against her. Wrote the judge:
Padrick was not a public employee or a public official. Summit Accommodators was not a public body or public corporation. Thus . . . , the statements here did not relate to the evaluation of the performance of a public agency or official.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
