Stirring Media LLC Giving Bad Information and Bad Advice on the Very Important Bloggers Rights, Free Speech Rights, First Amendment Rights Case of Obsidian Finance Group V. Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox Case

Just How Ignorant is STIRRING MEDIA LLC? 

Apparently I, Blogger Crystal Cox, was a BIG disappointment 

to bloggers and journalists, EVERYWHERE.  Gee Darn,
and I So Sought their Approval for my INDEPENDENT PRODUCT.

First of all Blogger, a lot of them are Journalists. Which is what I am fighting for. My Precedence will make it LEGAL for you to post things like this post about me, Blogger Crystal Cox, which is riddled with weak words for weak, scared, sheeple bloggers.  I did not DEFAME anyone. I reported on a $40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy and a Trustee that ran aMok. Read the Documents, read the Facts.

Oh and if the "disappointment" to those bloggers and journalists you refer to is regarding my Alleged Extortion. First, Engage your BRAIN and NOTE, even if I am a Criminal I can still be a Journalist, a Reporter and well, a Citizen that has First Amendment Rights, and should be protected under those same PRIVILEGED Laws as BIG MEDIA, and Traditional Journalists.

Secondly, Crystal Cox was NOT on trial for Extortion, if that is what your alleging is so darn disappointing to bloggers and journalists. Oh and I use RADICAL, Strong, Internet Marketing to Get Victims of Corruption in the U.S. Courts Found.  Those disappointed bloggers and journalists, don't have the BALLS to do this as they answer to the SYSTEM, to Corporate Greed, and Politics. I am TRULY, actually, REALLY Independent. 

STIRRING MEDIA LLC Gives you Bloggers, Citizen Journalists BAD, BAD Advice

If you want to actually learn the case, READ ALL the Documents. If you want to Understand the role of Obsidian Finance Group in the Summit Bankruptcy then study those documents. OR you can be a spineless, balless follower of those disappoint bloggers and journalists and be ALL butthurt and disappointed in Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox who really don't give a shit.

Dipshit Media, STIRRING MEDIA Says, "The Crystal L. Cox case shook the blogosphere, ultimately disappointing bloggers and journalists everywhere with the truth regarding her tactics and how she used blogging and search engine optimization. What happened, and what could this case mean to you, especially if you don’t consider yourself an “investigative blogger” or even blog as your profession? "

WOW I was disappointing to bloggers and journalists EVERYWHERE, WOW, little ol' ME? Geez guess they don't know how to read and simply have the OPINION they are Told to Have by that thar REAL MEDIA.

oh and Stirring Media, says, "with the truth regarding her tactics", WOW, the TRUTH, Stirring Media is that really what your going with? And where did you get your TRUTH? From those involved in the corruption I was and am exposing or from the BIG MEDIA that my Case Precedence is BRINGING Down by Ending the MONOPOLY that Big Media has on FREE SPEECH.  Can Ya Read, DUDE ?

Do you get how Important my Case is to ALL Citizen Journalists, Investigative Blogger and Whistleblowers?  Wake the FUCK up !!

oh and Stirring Media, says,  "The original trial took  place in December 2011, when the court ruled that Cox has to pay Obsidian Financial and bankruptcy lawyer Kevin Padrick $2.5 million for defamation.

Cox claimed in her numerous blog posts and websites that Padrick and company had engaged in tax fraud, bribery, and money laundering, among other things.

The blogging community was originally outraged, as the opinion was interpreted to mean that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and therefore wasn’t protected by the state’s shield law. On the surface, it seemed like a company with more money and power was able to squash the notion that it could be involved in wrong doing.

Reports from April 2012 now reveal that Cox wasn’t the victim of an outdated shield law, but was a scammer who utilized blogging and the Internet to ruin people’s online reputations, only to offer reputation management services to the very people she defamed. It was found that this was the case with Padrick and Obsidian Financial, as well as the journalists who covered the case in the months after, their family members, government officials in her home town, and other individuals at high-profile companies. Cox has never proven her accusations. Her case went to appeal, which was denied, where the original judge clarified by saying that he did not say all bloggers weren’t journalists, just not Cox."

WRONG again Dumb Ass, Trial was in November. And Bankruptcy TRUSTEE, Court Appointed, WAY Different then Bankruptcy Lawyer.  And yes I "Claimed" all that, I alleged and I linked to and gave the court massive internal documents, legal filings, videos, deposition and more from 3 years of sources. I have been reporting on this case for 3 Years.

"On the surface, it seemed like a company with more money and power was able to squash the notion that it could be involved in wrong doing."

YEP and that is Exactly what Happened, have you followed this at all, have you read the documents or their latest MOVE to Steal my Appeal Right. Have you "Investigated" to see if they were GUILTY?  Have you "Investigated" to see if there was really EXTORTION or if that was ANY part of the Case?

Ya Exposing People's CORRUPT Actions does RUIN their Reputation. 

I did not ruin their reputation, I Turned a BIG Fat Light on in the Dark, Dirty Corrupt Room ALL the Bad Reputation Causing Behavior was happening.

 I did not create it, nor make it up, nor post it to extort anyone. I offered a deal in a Settlement Negotiation AFTER I was sued. The email in Forbes and the New York Times is ONE of 5 and its part of 1 of 9 Settlement Negotiations. It was NOT Extortion, wake Up. I never Extorted anyone, I never received MONEY.

I was not on Trial for Extortion, I was not investigated for Extortion, I did not have a Criminal Complaint Filed for Extortion, I was not prosecuted for Extortion.

CAN YOU READ or JUST REGURGITATE ???

Now That you have Called me a SCAMMER, which I am NOT, you will now be named a Legal Action in Criminal and Civil Conspiracy, as I have SCAMMED no One.

Stirring Media, says, "Cox has never proven her accusations", are you kidding ?

You sure are STUPID, have you read my site or just listened to OTHERS, Hear Say? I gave the court over 400 documents, I had source(S), I had videos, internal emails, documents, depositions, legal filings, audio hearings, transcripts and more and I have had them on my sites and they are on the source site for over 3 years.

OH and the DUMBEST THING THAT Stirring Media LLC SAID "Her case went to appeal, which was denied", Keep in mind Reader that this was Published January 16, 2013 at 3:49 pm. And if Stirring Media LLC had any FACTS they would know that at that time, on that VERY day, a Sheriff's Sale was Scheduled, for WHAT? my Assets, what Asset? my Right to APPEAL, very important. Oh and if  Stirring Media LLC had any FACTS they would know that my APPEAL has been going on for a year, and TONS of surrounding information and issues important to ALL those Disappointed Bloggers and Journalists. Yet  Stirring Media LLC says my Appeal was Denied??? What??

Talk about BAD MEDIA !!

Oh ya and Judge Marco Hernandez did Say that ONLY Crystal Cox is not "Media", not a JOURNALIST, but hey YOU Could Be...  you got ONE RIGHT, So Stirring Media LLC does that sound RIGHT TO YOU?

Make any Sense at ALL? Why ME?

Because I have no standards? Really, so if the Judge don't like my style the laws or constitution does not apply? Or if the Judge thinks I am a Criminal then I am not protected by the law or constitutional rights in journalism? Oh and if the JUDGE thinks I am Criminal, why not file a Criminal Complaint, I mean Come ON, he is a Judge RIGHT? Wake UP. Do you NOT Get CORRUPTION Jack Ass. oh and Even if I am Guilty of Extortion that has nothing to do with whether the First Amendment, Retraction Laws, Shield Laws applied to me on that ONE Blog Post? HELLO !!

Stirring Media, says, "The first thing to do, if you’re a blogger who wants to be a journalist, is to understand what it means to be a journalist and what behaviors are associated with good journalists. United States District Court Judge Marco A. Hernandez defined media toward the end of his opinion of the original trial, which states:"  WRONG again, I certainly did all those things, wake Up.  Behavior has NOTHING to do with whether you are protected under the First Amendment, WAKE UP.  And You Don't Think I met any of those "media" definitions, REALLY. 7 years at this, 1200 Blogs, massive content, interviews, emails, sources, notes, editing capabilities and you think I met NONE of those. Or maybe I met them, but gee Darn I am a Criminal GUILTY of Extortion, Said no AUTHORITY, and so therefore I don't qualify on those reasons, this judge, says qualifies one as MEDIA.


Stirring Media, says, "Follow this definition, and you and your work won’t be discredited as sensational or opinionated."

WOW, well geez that's what we hard hitting, corruption exposing Investigative Bloggers, Whistle Blower, Citizen Journalist go for, to NOT Sensationalize or be Opinionated. Wouldn't want the sheeple to discredit the TRUTH and believe the LIE, now would we?

Stirring Media, says, "Second Lesson.  The second lesson is that bloggers can no longer get away with saying whatever they want, whenever they want online. Prior to this, bloggers have gotten away with writing falsehoods, releasing juicy stories before all the facts are in, or spreading rumor for self gain. If it can count as defamation, then it can be subject to an investigation and a trial similar to Cox’s. Even if it’s meant to be opinion, it’s important to exercise restraint. Take the time to do the legwork, to find evidence that’s more than anecdotal or circumstantial.

BULLSHIT, Bloggers certainly Do have the RIGHT to Say whatever the FUCK the Want, whenever the FUCK THEY Want to. And if your reporting on a Case and giving links to thousands of documents of proof, well BOY HOWDY, I suppose your entitled to an opinion or two, as well. And well if you have a BRAIN and the FACTS are Blatant, Obvious and Handy, well then you will certainly be BIASED to one side or the OTHER. That is what REAL Facts do. THEY expose the Truth and in that, how can the BLOGGER not be BIASED, DUH?

So Bloggers  Investigative Bloggers, Whistle Blower, Citizen Journalist Release THOSE Juicy Stories and Fear Not, it is on your Knowledge and Belief. Post them facts, post documents and videos and FEAR NOT, and do not listen to the scaredy cat advice of Sensational Stirring Media.

oH and I have had NO Self GAIN. I have gave Everything I knew to be my life for this fight for victims of corruption and for the rights of  Investigative Bloggers, Whistle Blower, and Citizen Journalist to Expose Corrupt Judges, Attorneys, Bankruptcy Trustees, Corporations, Politicians and more.

oh But if your going for mamby pampy regurgitating blogging like Stirring Media seems to strive for well then keep it MIDDLE of the Road, without Opinion, without Bias, oh and no Sensationalism to Discredit those words.

So Folks in the words of WISE Sage Stirring Media LLC, "Take the time to do the legwork, to find evidence" UNLIKE Stirring Media LLC has the capability, brains or balls to do.

Link to Mamby Bamby, Middle of the Road, Clueless, Factless Blog Post by STIRRING MEDIA, LLC Quoted Above
http://www.stirringmediallc.com/crystal-l-cox-case-bloggers/


For More REAL Research

http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/

http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/

http://www.objectiontofees.com/

THE LANHAM ACT" to Steal Domain Names, Intellectual Property and Suppress Free Speech, Avoid First Amendment Rights of Defendants. Latest Attorney Scam to BULLY Domainers, Bloggers, Online Media and Citizen Journalist.

A discussion on the Lanham Act and Domain Names.

"First Amendment rights trump Trademark law."

"THE LANHAM ACT AS IT APPLIES TO DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES
The Lanham Act was originally enacted as the Trademark Act of 1946. It has been amended several times. It is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127.¹
The Lanham Act provides remedies for both trademark infringement and trademark dilution. There is now, in addition, theAnticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999.² These are all discussed below.

A. INFRINGEMENT

Trademark infringement occurs when a non-owner uses another’s trademark in a way that causes actual confusion or a likelihood of confusion between the marks. Specifically, the Act prohibits the use of marks that are "likely to cause confusion, or to cause a mistake, or to deceive."³In order to establish infringement, a plaintiff must first show its own actual trademark use. That is, it cannot simply register and then warehouse a trademark in hopes of some day bringing an infringement suit. The plaintiff must also show that the trademark is distinctive. Finally, it must show that the defendant’s use of a mark is non-functional. A mark is non-functional when it is not inherent to the purpose or description of what it is representing. (For example, "bandage" is functional; "Band-Aid" is non-functional.)
 

B. DILUTION
 

Trademark dilution is less concrete than infringement. In order to understand it, one must be familiar with a number of terms of art. In a dilution case, there is a "senior user" and a "junior user." The senior user is the entity that used the mark first, and is almost always the plaintiff in a dilution case. The junior user is the entity that subsequently uses the mark. The junior user is usually the defendant in a dilution case.A dilution case involves use of a mark in a "commercial context." This means that the use in question must actually be in the stream of commerce and could therefore make a profit for the user.
Dilution deals with marks as a "source indicators." This term refers to the ability of a mark to identify a user and/or its products and services. One of the most important aspects of using marks as source indicators is the reputation of a user and how that affects the public’s perception of the mark.
Dilution occurs when a junior user uses a senior trademark user’s mark in a commercial context in a way that lessens the power of the senior user’s mark as a source indicator.⁴
There are two forms of dilution.
The first is dilution by tarnishment, which is the diminishing of the power of the senior user’s mark because of its association with the negative aspects or connotations of the junior user’s use of the mark.
The second is dilution by blurring, which is when the power of the senior user’s mark is decreased because of the blurring of the mark’s distinctive quality caused by the existence of the junior user’s mark.
In a dilution cause of action, the plaintiff must show that its mark is famous and that the junior user is using its mark in a commercial context. In order to determine whether a mark is famous, Congress set out eight nonexclusive factors that a court may consider.⁵
There are three uses that Congress made non-actionable under the dilution section of the Lanham Act. They are, briefly, fair use of a famous mark for comparative advertising or promotion, noncommercial use, and all forms of news reporting and commentary.⁶

C. CYBERPIRACY PREVENTION
 

The ACPA provides a cause of action similar to a dilution claim, but one with its own unique elements.The first difference is that the plaintiff’s mark need not be famous. It need only be protected.⁷
A plaintiff can establish liability by showing the following. The plaintiff must show that the defendant has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant has registered, trafficked in, or uses a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar to, or in the case of a famous mark, is dilutive of the plaintiff’s mark.⁸ Congress provided nine non-exclusive factors for a court to consider in order to determine bad faith under this section.⁹
The ACPA applies not only to protected marks, but also to protected personal names.¹⁰ The Cyberpiracy Protection for Individuals Act,¹¹ which applies specifically to "any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name. . ."¹²

Generally, the remedy for a trademark violation is injunctive. In the case of the ACPA, Congress allowed courts to order the cancellation or forfeiture of domain names that violate the trademark owner’s rights.¹³

---

III. "SUCKS.COM" CASES UNDER THE LANHAM ACTTo date, there have been two "sucks.com" cases decided under the Lanham Act. It is very unlikely that there will be any more.
In Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber,¹⁴ Bally brought a trademark infringement and dilution suit against Faber after Faber created and registered a website called www.compupix.com/ballysucks. This site, which no longer exists, was dedicated to complaints about Bally. The case was resolved before the ACPA was enacted.
The court immediately concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between Bally and Ballysucks.com because they are not "related goods" and dismissed the infringement claim.

Although the court dismissed the infringement claim, it still discussed how the case would come out under the most common likelihood of confusion test, found in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats.¹⁵ The court most likely did this because this was the first case of its kind and the court wanted to establish some official position on the matter.
The Sleekcraft test uses eight factors to determine whether a defendant’s use of a plaintiff’s trademark creates a likelihood of confusion. The factors are:

Strength of the mark
Proximity of the goods
Similarity of the marks
Evidence of confusion
Marketing channels used
Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark
Likelihood of expansion of the product lines¹⁶

The court found that Bally has strong marks, as evidenced by the amount of money spent on advertising and the fact that no other health club company uses the Bally mark. This factor came out in favor of Bally.The court found that the similarity of marks factor leaned in favor of Faber. Bally argued that the marks are identical or that adding "sucks" on the end of "Bally" is a minor change. The court found that "sucks" is such a loaded and negative word that the attachment of it to another word cannot be considered a minor change.
Bally asserted that the goods were in close proximity because both used the Internet and because it had a complaint section on its own website. The court found, however, that the sites did not compete, even though they were both on the Internet. This is because Bally’s is a commercial site while Faber’s site is for the purpose of consumer commentary. The factor leaned in favor of Faber.
Bally presented no evidence of actual confusion. Bally argued that the confusion would be patently obvious due to the similarity of the marks. The court, however, found that a reasonably prudent user would not mistake Faber’s site and the official Bally’s site. This factor leaned in favor of Faber.
Bally argued that the marketing channels used, namely the Internet, were identical. The court found that the overlap of marketing channels was irrelevant because Faber’s site was not a commercial use of the mark. This factor was neutral or slightly in favor of Faber.
Bally argues that an Internet user may accidentally access Faber’s site when searching for Bally’s site on the web. The court dismissed this because Faber does not actually use Bally’s trademark. It further points out that an Internet user searching with a search engine may want all the information available on Bally’s and is entitled to more than Bally’s own site. This factor leaned in favor of Faber.
The court found, and Bally agreed to some extent, that in the context of consumer commentary, Faber was entitled to use Bally’s mark. In fact, he had to use Bally’s mark in some way to identify what he was criticizing. This factor was neutral.
Bally conceded that there was no likelihood of the two parties expanding into each other’s lines of business. For this reason, the last factor leaned in favor of Faber.¹⁷
In concluding its discussion of likelihood of confusion, the court stated that "applying Bally’s argument would extend trademark protection to eclipse First Amendment rights. The courts, however, have rejected this approach by holding that trademark rights may be limited by First Amendment concerns."¹⁸

Under the dilution claim, Bally argued that there was dilution by tarnishment because Faber also had pornographic websites linked from the compupix.com site.
The court found that Faber had engaged in no commercial use of the Bally name due to the nature of the website. The court also concluded that there was no tarnishment. In so deciding, the court said that if tarnishment existed in this case, "it would be an impossible task to determine dilution on the Internet."¹⁹ The court went on to point out that to include "linked sites as grounds for finding commercial use or dilution would extend the statute far beyond its intended purpose of protecting trademark owners from use that have the effect of ‘lessening. . . the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services.’"²⁰
For these reasons, the court ruled in favor of Faber.
In the other "sucks.com" Lanham Act, Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com,²¹ the court did not get beyond the jurisdictional issues to reach the merits. However, the court acknowledged in dicta that had the case reached the merits, the court probably would have reached a decision similar the one reached in Bally.²²
The remaining "sucks.com" cases have been decided under the UDRP.

---

IV. THE UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICYOn October 24, 1999, ICANN adopted its Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.²³ Since then, the UDRP has been used by domain name dispute resolution panels, most notably those associated with WIPO, to rule on domain name disputes. A number of these disputes have involved "sucks.com" websites.
Part of the registration process for a getting a domain name includes acceptance of the UDRP. A domain name owner can lose its rights to the domain name if it violates the UDRP.²⁴
Section 4 of the UDRP explains the mandatory administrative proceeding that any domain name owner could be subject to. This proceeding occurs when a third party complainant asserts that the domain name owner has used a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, that the domain name owner does not have rights or legitimate interests in the name, and that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.²⁵
The UDRP lists four non-exclusive factors to be considered in determining bad faith.²⁶
The remedies sought in a UDRP proceedings are the cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the complainant owner of the mark.²⁷
The UDRP proceeding does not prevent its loser from taking the case to court following the conclusion of the proceeding.²⁸

---

V. "SUCKS.COM" CASES UNDER THE UDRPA number of "sucks.com" cases have been heard by panels using the UDRP’s mandatory administrative procedure. These hearings have come out strongly in the opposite direction from the court cases under the Lanham Act.
At one point, in fact, nine of the eleven "sucks.com" cases heard under the UDRP, had been decided in favor of the original mark owner, with the other two hearings awaiting decisions.²⁹
A notable recent example of a UDRP hearing is Diageo plc v. John Zuccarini, Individually and t/a Cupcake Patrol.³⁰ Diageo, formerly known as Guinness plc, the owner of the company and brewery that produces Guinness beer, brought this proceeding against Zuccarini after Zuccarini registered eleven domain names, all variations on the theme of "Guinness beer sucks."³¹
Previously, Diageo had brought a hearing against Zuccarini for his registration of guinnes.com. It claimed that Zuccarini’s registration of the eleven Guinness _____sucks.com sites were in direct retaliation for its having done this.³²
In deciding on Zuccarini’s liability, the panel³³ first looked at the question of whether the domain names were identical or confusingly similar to Diageo’s mark. Because the marks were not identical, the panel looked to whether they were confusingly similar. The panel decided that the domain names were confusingly similar. 

In doing so, it relied on precedent from a previous hearing in which a panel held that "the confusingly similar test may be held to a different standard when used with Internet search engines."³⁴
The panel also used the same Sleekcraft test for likelihood of confusion that the court used in Bally.³⁵ However, the panel acknowledged that there were some difficulties in applying the test to a domain name dispute. Nevertheless, because neither party objected, the test was used.³⁶
The panel found that Diageo had a very strong mark.
The panel found that although the parties were in different line of trade, the fact that there were beer references in a number of Zuccarini’s domain names was enough to establish some kind of proximity.
The panel found that because the word "guinness" appeared at the beginning of each of the domain names, there was at least some similarity between the marks.
There was no evidence of actual confusion. However, the panel found that it was unrealistic to require such evidence, especially because Zuccarini’s domain names had not actually been used for active websites.
When considering the marketing channels, the panel again pointed out the distinction between trademarks and domain names. It did accept, however, the assertion that a search using a search engine would likely point out the domain names in dispute.

The panel was unsure of how to interpret the question of the degree care exercised by the purchaser. Of particular concern was the fact that "sucks" is an American slang word and may not be familiar to all English speakers, let alone all Internet users. Because of this, the panel envisioned "circumstances where Internet users are not aware of the abusive connotations of the word and consequently associate the domain name with the owner of the trademark."³⁷
The panel found that Zuccarini had no legitimate reason to select the marks to use for the domain name and that there was no evidence of any likelihood that either party would expand its product lines.
Based on its consideration of the UDRP standards and the Sleekcraft factors, the panel decided that Zuccarini had no legitimate interest in the Guinness name, and that his registering the "sucks.com" websites was primarily to disrupt Diageo’s business and was therefore done in bad faith.³⁸

Based on its findings, the panel ordered that all eleven domain names be transferred to Diageo.³⁹
While the panel did decide in favor of the Diageo, it did so at least in part because Zuccarini made no response to Diageo’s allegations, which the panel felt established prima facie cases for the elements needed under the UDRP.⁴⁰
The Bally court focused in the end on the fact that First Amendment rights trump Trademark law. The panel in this case was more concerned by the fact that a test designed for trademark law was used in a decision also involving domain names, stating that "it is obvious that there remains many areas of doubt as to how the various elements of the test can be transposed in its application to disputes involving a comparison of domain names and trademarks."⁴¹ "

Source
http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/cls01/hamer3.html

Also Check Out
http://stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, Eureka Montana Native, SAYS that Joyce Sterkel is no advocate for Russian Children. Crystal Cox Alleges that Joyce Sterkel Ranch for Kids Eureka Montana is Greed based in ALL Decisions and the Lure of MONEY, and Lot's of It, Trafficking Russian Children is ALL that Joyce Sterkel Ranch for Kids was ever After. Blogger Crystal Cox Alleges that Joyce Sterkel, Ranch for Kids Eureka Montana, is Evil Plain and Simple. The Ranch for Kids is BASED on a Business Model of Trafficking Children, and making BIG BUCKS and is NOT based on the Best Interest of these Russian Children.

"Eureka ranch at center of debate over adoption of Russian children"

"EUREKA – In the past year, the Ranch for Kids Project has come under scrutiny by top-ranking Russian government officials, who in June arrived at the respite care facility for troubled adopted children, many of them Russian, with a Moscow television crew in tow, criticizing the unlicensed boarding school for warehousing children in a remote corner of Montana.

The facility, designed for troubled adopted children who suffer from fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, as well as the effects of living in difficult conditions in orphanages abroad, also is in the midst of a lawsuit by a Montana Department of Labor and Industry board, which is challenging its exemption from state licensing requirements and fees due to its status as an “adjunct ministry.”

And, most recently, a decree banning Americans from adopting Russian children, signed last month by President Vladimir Putin, effectively stanches the procession of Russian orphans into the country, where American families sometimes find the children unmanageable due to extreme behavioral problems that are the result of gross neglect and damage caused by alcohol and drugs ingested by their mothers while pregnant.

Source and Full Article
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/eureka-ranch-at-center-of-debate-over-adoption-of-russian/article_60aabadf-5572-5794-806b-e3b374140adc.html

Also Remember that Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox has been speaking out against Joyce Sterkel and the Ranch for Kids for Years. Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, me, has been reporting on, investigative blogging, on Joyce Sterkel and the Ranch for Kids for several Years.

Joyce Sterkel of the Ranch for Kids in Eureka Montana has criminally and civilly conspired with my death threat stalker Sean Boushie, with Opposing Counsel, David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm in Obsidian Finance Group V. Cox and other co-conspirators in attempting to SILENCE the flow of information on the Investigative Blogs of Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox. Joyce Sterkel of the Ranch for Kids has done this fight to silence Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox for several years.

Crimes Against Humanity. CPS Corruption Exposed by Nancy Schaefer "The Unlimited Power of Child Protective Services". Nancy Schaefer Was Murdered for her Fight Against CPS. Open Family Court, Transparency in CPS, Stop CPS Corruption, Remove CPS from Governmental Power. Research Nancy Schaefer and CPS Exposed.

Nancy Schaefer CPS Exposed Research Links

http://parentingnewsnetwork.com/?p=681

http://fightcps.com/2008/02/29/report-of-georgia-senator-nancy-schaefer-on-cps-corruption/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpEs_5bYCgo

http://awareamerican.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/cps-child-protective-services-involved-in-trafficking-children-to-pedophile-rings/

http://dcfsaveourchildren.blogspot.com/2011/08/corrupt-business-of-child-protective.html

Before Nancy Schaefer death, she published and promoted the report "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Schaefer

Nancy Schaefer Murder Research Links

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/03/31/852665/-The-Murder-of-Nancy-Schaefer-CPS

http://www.infowars.com/cps-warrior-nancy-schaefer-gunned-down/

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=10366/

Crimes Against Humanity. CPS Corruption Exposed by Nancy Schaefer "The Unlimited Power of Child Protective Services". Nancy Schaefer Was Murdered for her Fight Against CPS. Open Family Court, Transparency in CPS, Stop CPS Corruption, Remove CPS from Governmental Power. Research Nancy Schaefer and CPS Exposed.

Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox SUES WIPO, Edward Kwakwa, Francis Gurry WIPO Director, Peter L. Michaelson WIPO Panelist for Criminal and Civil Conspiracy and More in State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL.

Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox SUES WIPO, Francis Gurry WIPO Director, Peter L. Michaelson WIPO Panelist

Judge Christine A. Pomeroy - Child Protective Services in Thurston County Washington (Olympia),the Irene Holmes Story. DSHS Washington, Olympia DSHS,Washington Family Court.

Snohomish County Social Worker, DSHS Washington, Olympia DSHS, Olympia Child Protective Services, Washington Family Court, DSHS Board of Appeals,James Dixon Child Support Division Washington State Child Protective Services Dept of Social and Health Services General Administration Dept of the State of WA

No Matter How Much You Need Money, or How Gorgeous you Are. Do NOT Get into the Porn Industry. Learn How to Make a Living Online without the Evils of the Porn Industry. READ Perfect for Porn by Porn Industry Whistle Blower / Porn Industry Insider Monica Foster and find out Why Porn May not be "Perfect" for You or your Loved One.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.