HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » laserhaas » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Name: Laser Haas
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Anywhere USA
Home country: United States
Current location: NOMADIC
Member since: Mon Apr 21, 2008, 12:12 PM
Number of posts: 7,805

About Me

Love BB, Laser Tag, Poker (Tournaments only). Work with Occupy camps. Willing to help you in your fight for justice (let's discuss it).

Journal Archives

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Rules Bloggers Get Press Protection - The Crystal Cox Story!

Source: Reuters

A blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless she acted negligently, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Cox deserved a new trial, regardless of the fact that she is not a traditional reporter.

Cox wrote a series of blog posts, including one that accused Padrick of tax fraud in failing to pay $174,000 in taxes owed by Summit. U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez in Oregon rejected Cox's First Amendment defenses, and a jury awarded Padrick and Obsidian a combined $2.5 million.

However, the 9th Circuit found that the tax fraud allegations were a matter of public concern, which means Obsidian had to show evidence of Cox's negligent behavior.

Read more: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/usa-blogger-ruling-idINL2N0KR1GB20140117

Previously, yours truly has benefited from the good faith works of Blogger Crystal Cox, who has helped get the word out concerning federal bankruptcy fraud and corruption. Crystal has reported much on this plaintiff's saga around the eToys bankruptcy case, corrupt US Attorney Colm Connolly, who was secretly a Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital law firm (www.MNAT.com) attorney from 1999 to 2001 (the very time Mitt Romney claims to be "retroactively" retired from Bain Capital.

Crystal Cox was abused by the rich and powerful and was burdened with $2 million lawsuit loss.

What the Court over Crystal Cox said, is that she wasn't entitle to the same freedom of the press protections; because she was a blogger - and Bloggers aren't the same as main stream media. But the 9th Circuit says this is not correct and has overturned the decision - as to the part that Bloggers don't get freedom of the press protections.

I've got a previous thread here at DU - I'll find later;
meanwhile - here's the story from my DailyKos article in 2011.

Most of us are now aware that an Oregon Judge purportedly drew a line in the sand between "journalist" and "blogger" - in the $2.5 million dollar award against self proclaimed "Investigative Journalist" Crystal Cox. (See Seattle Times story (here)). While there are vast arguments about what Crystal Cox did or did not do - a noteworthy team has magnamously stepped forward and volunteered to defend her case (and thus BLOG lines too). KUDOs much to that of UCLA Professor Volokh (of the Volokh Conspiracy BLOG) and his affiliated local counsel, Benjamin Souede of Angeli Law Group LLC.


You can see Volokh's public announce of December 23, 2003, as it best details the issue far beyond the petty remarks, snipes, banter, hyperbole and purported unbiased criticisms of Crystal Cox for being a bad writer - etc. Aptly framed to be a story in point Professor Volokh entitled the announcing;

"New Pro Bono Case on Whether First Amendment Libel Rules are Limited to Institutional Media Defendants"

and Professor Eugene Volokh states the "real" case on point in 1 paragraph;

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) held that even private-figure libel plaintiffs (1) may not recover proven compensatory damages unless the defendant was at least negligent in its investigation, and (2) may not recover presumed or punitive damages unless the defendant knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded a known and substantial risk that the statements were false. The District Court in Obsidian Finance held that the defendant was not entitled to the protection of Gertz, because she was not a member of the “media.” But as I’ve argued in my forthcoming University of Pennsylvania Law Review article, Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology? From the Framing to Today, the First Amendment has historically been understood as protecting people who use mass communications technology equally, whether or not they are members of the institutional media. I much look forward to litigating this case, and, I hope, getting the District Court decision reversed.


Congratulations Professor Volokh and counsel Benjamin Souede of Angeli Law Group LLC.


Go prove that they are the bad guys you said they were.

A great day for the little gal beating Goliath's

Any and all things criminal Pitten's - I intend to give him a just due fitten's

Please keep the information coming?


freshwest - I actually appreciate your candor and applaud your research/insights

This case is not about victim Laser Haas versus Mitt Romney;
it is germane to the issues of WSJ slaughtering U.S. citizenry without remorse or relent.

We are in a Civil War;
but no one really cares about dollar bullets.

Until one's life savings are ALL GONE!


Romney IS the boss in this case and has benefited (indirectly and Directly) from the organized crimes.

As far as 'get'ting him -

We've already done that - because Pitten's - Didn't Make It!

Romney the Racketeer Lawsuit - Update Day 75 - Press starting to pay attention

- - You may be aware already that yours truly has sued Romney & Gang for Racketeering in the Federal District Court of Los Angeles. Many a stalwart for Romney barked and trolled that the case would never see light of day. First they said the Clerk would refuse the case. Then they said the Court would immediately toss it out.

Well, here we are, in the 75th day and I'm mailing the 2nd Amended Complaint to the Defendants.

They must answer - OR - lose by default!

Meanwhile, others are picking up on the case and word is getting around out there. Currently, with Hollywood posers coming a calling; I'm compelled to engage an entertainment attorney and will make a choice on that real soon. You can see one of the stories written that has gained more than 25,000 Facebook likes/shares that is being linked to by another DU party named "Ellipsis" and his GD thread with a oddly titled "Mitt Romney is Being Sued in Fed Court for Criminal Racketeering".

The fact of the matter is, I'm suing Romney for Racketeering under "Civil" Code 1964(c).

photo be Ann Werner

Fellow DU'r "Ellipsis" links to an "AATTP" (Americans Against The Tea Party) website that is re-telling the tale as told by Ann Werner from "Liberals Unite" 24 hour News/Website of a guy name Samuel-Warde.com (all of whom yours truly has never heard of heretofore). Ann's article is aptly titled "Mitt Romney Being Sued For Racketeering in Federal Court". The AATTP website apparently fails to give proper credit to the source story; and that's a big no no.

Ann Werner points out that the story has been overlooked by main stream.

This, sad to say, has been the way it is; because Romney owns a big piece of main stream via his Bain Capital ownership of Clear Channel Communications (which was acquired by Racketeering profits). Also, Bain Capital is partners with NBC in The Weather Channel; and Bain owns Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Sports Authority, Celtics, Dunkin Donuts, Kay Bee, HCA, Guitar Centers, Stage Stores and eToys. Thus there's a billion dollars in advertising revenue generated by Bain Capital each year; and no Editor is going to risk losing those dollars by pointing out the story 1st.

Even when parties do (like American Bridge) - Bain buys them OFF!

As I stated before, we are mailing Romney & Gang the 2nd Amended Complaint (the first one's were rants) - that tells the story and address key Racketeering issues (such as "association in fact" / "Bankruptcy Rings". If Romney & Gang accept my mailing and sign the release form - they get 60 days to answer - instead of 21. Either way, within 75 days, this case is going to clearly go where the issues have not gone heretofore.

A legitimate process


- - ARTICLE by Addicting Info Website

Ann Werner and I are in discussions about her next story (she will possibly do a series on the entire case). In the meantime, Nathaniel Downes has written a well researched article digging into subtle issues of our cases. His story is upon the AddictingINFO.org website and is titled "Mitt Romney Slapped With Racketeering Lawsuit". I'm impressed that Mr. Downes has taken the time to look at the factual details of the case. As a result he has received 36,000 Facebook "likes" and 37,000 Facebook "shares".

Nathan denotes the following items inside his article;

eToys Liquidation Or Con Game? One Man’s Fight To Make Sure Mitt Romney Pays For His Crime.

Stephen “Laser” Haas operates Collateral Logistics Inc. (CLI) a company which was appointed to oversee the liquidation of assets in the bankruptcy of eToys in 2001. He has now filed suit against Mitt Romney along with his company Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs, and several other firms, over actions taken in the eToys bankruptcy which manipulated the sale price, costing the companies shareholders millions. A US Judge confirmed the details of the case back in 2005, but under the Bush administration enforcement of these laws was lackluster at best. Bain Capital has already found itself in hot water over similar price-fixing scandals, but this case comes with paperwork implicating the one time GOP presidential nominee of price manipulation.


I suggest reading both Ann Werner's article and Nathaniel's;
because they are different viewpoints about the same issue

Romney IS a Racketeer!


What I'm curious to know is - do you think Romney will get away totally 'Scot Free'?

NO there's NO Statute of Limitations for Civil RICO - though some Circuits implied 4 years


The statute itself allows 10 year windows. The US Supreme Court has stipulated in the case of In re Hazel Atlas Glass that SOL doesn't apply to fraud on the court BY Officers of the Court.

Finally, Romney is "retroactively" resigned as of August 2001; back to Feb 1999. His law firm MNAT had a partner who just so happens to be a partner from 1999 to August 2001. Then, on August 2, 2001, Colm Connolly was promoted to US Attorney in Delaware; where he refused to investigate and/or prosecute his former partner/clients for 7 years.

Can Capone arrange for Nitti to be the federal prosecutor over his case;
and then claim statute of limitations when Nitti failed to prosecute?
Go to Page: 1