Ninth Circuit Recognizes First Amendment Protections for Bloggers On Jan. 17, 2014; This is the "First Ruling" Granting this Protection to BLOGGERS.

"First RULING to Grant Protection to Bloggers."

"Bloggers achieved a significant victory when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held on Jan. 17, 2014 that First Amendment protections in defamation lawsuits extend to bloggers. 

In April 2014, a Florida appellate court held that bloggers were entitled to pre-suit notices for defamation suits under Florida law.

 Although the victories are welcome news to online content producers everywhere, the jailing of an Alabama blogger has raised questions and concerns among free speech advocates. 

Online speakers may still have obstacles to overcome before courts fully recognize that First Amendment protections apply to them.

Ninth Circuit Recognizes First Amendment Protections for Bloggers On Jan. 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that bloggers receive the same First Amendment protections as institutional media in defamation lawsuits. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2014).

......
The district court held that only one blog post could be interpreted as containing a statement of fact, and could proceed to trial. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Or. 2011). 


The remaining blog posts were considered constitutionally protected opinions because they did not contain provable statements of fact. Cox also claimed protection under Oregon’s journalist’s shield law, but District Judge Marco A. Hernandez held that she did not meet the definitions of who can receive protection as laid out by the state statute. (For more information on Cox’s shield law claims, see “Defamation Lawsuits Pose Threat to Journalists as Online Communication Complicates First Amendment Analysis” in the Spring 2012 issue of the Silha Bulletin).

Cox also made First Amendment arguments that the liability standards should be governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 (1974). In Gertz, the Supreme Court held that a private plaintiff needs to show only negligence to recover actual damages from a media defendant.

But a plaintiff can only recover presumed or punitive damages upon a showing that a media defendant acted with “actual malice,” meaning that the statements were made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Cox argued that, under Gertz, Padrick and Obsidian carried the burden of proving her negligence in order to recover actual damages for defamation.

Cox also argued that Padrick and Obsidian must show that she acted with actual malice to receive presumed damages. Judge Hernandez dismissed these arguments, stating that Cox had not proven that she was a journalist. Therefore, the protections of Gertz did not apply to her.

....

At the conclusion of the trial, a jury returned verdicts in favor of Padrick and Obsidian. Cox moved for a new trial, which the district court denied. Cox then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court had ruled incorrectly on the liability standards and Padrick’s and Obsidian’s public figure status. Padrick and Obsidian filed a cross-appeal contending that the jury should have considered their defamation claims relating to the other blog posts.

In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s judgment against Cox. The court held that Gertz’s liability rules were not limited only to situations that involved traditional media defendants. The opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz explained that although the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Gertz standard applied to others besides institutional media, the Court’s language in the opinion also did not limit the ruling to institutional media alone. 


Hurwitz wrote, “[the Supreme Court] has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers,” citing several cases in which the high court declined to create a distinction between members of the press and the general public.

As a result, the court agreed with other circuits that “the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.” The court also noted that trying to create a distinction between institutional media and other communicators was very difficult. 

Therefore, the court said that the key First Amendment factor under Gertz in defamation cases was not the identity of the speaker. Rather, “the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue” are the key First Amendment considerations. Through this rationale, Cox, as a blogger, was entitled to the same liability standards that traditional forms of media received under the First Amendment.

In addition to determining that Sullivan and Gertz protections apply to the general public, the appeals court also rejected the argument that Gertz was limited to defamation cases involving matters of public concern. Hurwitz wrote that even if Gertz was limited to such a situation, Cox’s blog posts concerned public matters qualifying for protection.  ....

Several First Amendment advocates and advocacy organizations praised the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. 

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox during the appeals process, told Associated Press reporter Jeff Barnard for a Jan. 17, 2014 article that the decision “makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists.” 

Volokh also noted that the decision followed similar court rulings that granted First Amendment protections to other writers and book authors,although this ruling appeared to be the first to grant protection to bloggers. 

In the same article, Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), said the ruling confirmed the fact that Gertz was “not a special right to the news media.” Rather, it applied to everyone. “So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others,” Leslie said."

Source and Full Article
http://silha.umn.edu/news/WinterSpring2014/SILHACENTERBloggersFirstAmendmentUniversityofMinnesota.html

More at
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Ninth Circuit Recognizes First Amendment Protections for Bloggers On Jan. 17, 2014; This is the "First Ruling" Granting this Protection to BLOGGERS.

"First RULING to Grant Protection to Bloggers."

"Bloggers achieved a significant victory when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held on Jan. 17, 2014 that First Amendment protections in defamation lawsuits extend to bloggers. 

In April 2014, a Florida appellate court held that bloggers were entitled to pre-suit notices for defamation suits under Florida law.

 Although the victories are welcome news to online content producers everywhere, the jailing of an Alabama blogger has raised questions and concerns among free speech advocates. 

Online speakers may still have obstacles to overcome before courts fully recognize that First Amendment protections apply to them.

Ninth Circuit Recognizes First Amendment Protections for Bloggers On Jan. 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that bloggers receive the same First Amendment protections as institutional media in defamation lawsuits. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2014).

......
The district court held that only one blog post could be interpreted as containing a statement of fact, and could proceed to trial. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Or. 2011). 


The remaining blog posts were considered constitutionally protected opinions because they did not contain provable statements of fact. Cox also claimed protection under Oregon’s journalist’s shield law, but District Judge Marco A. Hernandez held that she did not meet the definitions of who can receive protection as laid out by the state statute. (For more information on Cox’s shield law claims, see “Defamation Lawsuits Pose Threat to Journalists as Online Communication Complicates First Amendment Analysis” in the Spring 2012 issue of the Silha Bulletin).

Cox also made First Amendment arguments that the liability standards should be governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 (1974). In Gertz, the Supreme Court held that a private plaintiff needs to show only negligence to recover actual damages from a media defendant.

But a plaintiff can only recover presumed or punitive damages upon a showing that a media defendant acted with “actual malice,” meaning that the statements were made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Cox argued that, under Gertz, Padrick and Obsidian carried the burden of proving her negligence in order to recover actual damages for defamation.

Cox also argued that Padrick and Obsidian must show that she acted with actual malice to receive presumed damages. Judge Hernandez dismissed these arguments, stating that Cox had not proven that she was a journalist. Therefore, the protections of Gertz did not apply to her.

....

At the conclusion of the trial, a jury returned verdicts in favor of Padrick and Obsidian. Cox moved for a new trial, which the district court denied. Cox then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court had ruled incorrectly on the liability standards and Padrick’s and Obsidian’s public figure status. Padrick and Obsidian filed a cross-appeal contending that the jury should have considered their defamation claims relating to the other blog posts.

In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s judgment against Cox. The court held that Gertz’s liability rules were not limited only to situations that involved traditional media defendants. The opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz explained that although the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Gertz standard applied to others besides institutional media, the Court’s language in the opinion also did not limit the ruling to institutional media alone. 


Hurwitz wrote, “[the Supreme Court] has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers,” citing several cases in which the high court declined to create a distinction between members of the press and the general public.

As a result, the court agreed with other circuits that “the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.” The court also noted that trying to create a distinction between institutional media and other communicators was very difficult. 

Therefore, the court said that the key First Amendment factor under Gertz in defamation cases was not the identity of the speaker. Rather, “the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue” are the key First Amendment considerations. Through this rationale, Cox, as a blogger, was entitled to the same liability standards that traditional forms of media received under the First Amendment.

In addition to determining that Sullivan and Gertz protections apply to the general public, the appeals court also rejected the argument that Gertz was limited to defamation cases involving matters of public concern. Hurwitz wrote that even if Gertz was limited to such a situation, Cox’s blog posts concerned public matters qualifying for protection.  ....

Several First Amendment advocates and advocacy organizations praised the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. 

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox during the appeals process, told Associated Press reporter Jeff Barnard for a Jan. 17, 2014 article that the decision “makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists.” 

Volokh also noted that the decision followed similar court rulings that granted First Amendment protections to other writers and book authors,although this ruling appeared to be the first to grant protection to bloggers. 

In the same article, Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), said the ruling confirmed the fact that Gertz was “not a special right to the news media.” Rather, it applied to everyone. “So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others,” Leslie said."

Source and Full Article
http://silha.umn.edu/news/WinterSpring2014/SILHACENTERBloggersFirstAmendmentUniversityofMinnesota.html

More at
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Jill Buhler, John Austin, Phil Johnson of Jefferson County Public Health, Port Townsend Washington seem to think it's ok for you to RENT a home that was a KNOWN Meth Lab and with No Disclosures to you who will be living in the home.

Jefferson County Public Health, Port Townsend Washington is NOT protecting the Civil and Human rights of Jefferson County renters, children and the community at large, the way I see it.

Why is Jill Buhler, John Austin, Phil Johnson and Dr. Tom Locke protecting slumlords over the civil and human rights of the citizens of Jefferson County?

"Barry Ellis stands in front of the Port Townsend house that he and his girlfriend rented in 2011 and that was the subject of his complaint to county and state public health boards. Ellis said chemicals in the house caused him and his girlfriend to become sick in 2011."

Source
http://www.ptleader.com/testing/pt-meth-lab-complaint-rejected/image_c4ce87b6-e5d6-5da2-ade7-23b5b26763aa.html

Folks, Don't you Think You Should have the Right to KNOW

if the home you rent was a place where Meth was cooked?

I have been a Real Estate Broker for 15 years and this is not what we are taught. Meth Labs are a VERY serious health risk. Why is Jefferson County Washington NOT protecting tenants, children and the public at large from slumlords such as Bent Meyer, the owner of this home. 

Jefferson County Public Health and Dr. Thomas H. Locke MD, the powers that be, seem to think that if it is a problem that Meth houses are being rented to unsuspecting families at great health risk, well then let's change the law, the regulations.

Dr. Tom Locke, Jill Buhler, John Austin, Phil Johnson and the gang seems to be saying that We won't enforce the law and protect renters, protect the citizens of Jefferson County, so let's deregulate and make the law, the standards less so that if the home was a Meth Cook Facility, a Meth Lab then we won't have to test, clean up nor let renters know even if we are putting young children at risk with total disregard to the law, public safety and child welfare.

Landlord Bent Meyer

So who owns the Meth Lab rental? I guess its a guy named Bent Meyer. He is said to be a pastor of a church that provides domestic violence counseling and seems to misuse it's power and connections to prey on vulnerable women in the name of God.

From what I hear, Ex- Pastor Bent Meyer, the Slumlord landlord of 31st Street house in Port Townsend Washington knew that the home was used to cook meth, as did the property managers a Townsend Bay Property Management owned by Donna Murphy Doney. And they seem to think its legal, ethical and moral to go ahead and NOT disclose nor protect the public at large.

Townsend Bay Property Management allegedly claims the property was cleaned up, but I have personally seen no proof or certificate of this being factual.

Ex- Pastor Bent Meyer Bent Meyer Speaks Out About Redemption, provides abuse counseling, and comes off as an all around do gooder.

 Yet in Port Townsend Washington, Bent Meyer owns a home that he knew was a Meth lab and yet he rented it out and people got sick, VERY SICK. Children live in the home and are at great risk. Jefferson County Board of Health seems to protect him, why?

I also allege, from what I have heard and believe, Bent Meyer had an issue with the tenant that had the meth lab again and again regarding the Meth Lab and regarding unpaid rent. It is said that Bent Meyer, counselor and either pastor or ex-pastor, traded sex with the tenant in exchange for the rent. I believe that is either rape or prostitution, neither of which is moral, ethical or legal. I wonder if Townsend Bay Property Management knows this too. 

"Former renter plans to pursue matter in federal court"

"By Allison Arthur" Port Townsend Leader Article

"A former Port Townsend resident who rented a 31st Street house in 2011 – and then concluded he had become sick because the place was infused with chemicals from earlier methamphetamine manufacturing – has encountered a setback in his effort for relief.

That former renter, Barry Ellis, at first sought help from the Jefferson County Board of Health, which has the power to publicly post a hazard warning on property proven to have had meth activity, and to require landlords to do a thorough cleanup.

The County Board of Health turned him down, citing a lack of clear evidence.

He then appealed that decision to the Washington State Board of Health. That board, on Nov. 12, denied his appeal, endorsing the earlier decision of the county board to place no restrictions on the property.

Coincidentally (or not, according to Ellis), Jefferson County Commissioner John Austin is both a member of the County Board of Health and the chair of the Washington State Board of Health, to which the appeal was made. Austin, however, recused himself from voting on the matter as a state board member.

In addition, Dr. Tom Locke, public health officer for Jefferson and Clallam counties, has been a state leader in drafting a law related to drug-infused housing, and argues that standards are too strict and should be reduced.

“I was expecting this,” said Ellis of the state board’s rejection of his appeal. Ellis says he is likely to appeal to a higher power, federal court. He’s not giving up, he said, because he thinks that the health of unsuspecting renters like himself is on the line.

“They can’t admit liability. I’m already talking with attorneys. You never win against the state in the state court. I have a three-year clock,” noting a three-year statute of limitations to sue the state Board of Health.
Ellis said he could draw a lesson from the state board’s ruling. “I think that what happened is this is a good ol’ boy network, and I think they covered their ass with Locke,” he said.

STARTED WITH 2011 RENTAL

The case is based on Ellis’ complaint about a house at 1507 31st St. in Port Townsend. In his written complaint to the Jefferson County Board of Health, Ellis stated that he and his girlfriend rented that house in April 2011. During the 14 months he was there, “I experienced internal bleeding, two emergency surgeries, numerous medical procedures.” He said his former girlfriend had tried to commit suicide and required medical attention right after moving in.

In his formal complaint to the county, Ellis wrote that a neighbor told Ellis that the house had been used to “cook” methamphetamine.

In April 2012, Ellis went to Marjorie Boyd of Jefferson County Public Health to inquire about possible drug use or chemical infusion at the house. 

He also started submitting open public records requests to the Port Townsend Police Department (PTPD) to find out if there were any incidents at the house investigated by police.

In his testimony before the county health board in March of this year, Ellis said he had contacted the owner of the house, Bent Meyer. Meyer “refused to address the situation, but did tell me to move out immediately,” Ellis said.

When Ellis responded that he wanted permission to have the property tested for meth, “I was locked out of the residence without a court order,” he said, so that he could not have the residence tested.

Before being locked out, Ellis said, he removed some items and later had those tested for meth residue. He forwarded the results to Boyd of the county health department.

Ellis said the test results showed chemical levels “between two and 26 times the legal limit.” Boyd told him there was nothing she could do to help him, according to Ellis, a conclusion repeated by other county health department staff.

Ellis said he took the matter to the PTPD, where a case file was created. However, the PTPD apparently could not confirm prior drug activity at the house. Without that finding, the county health department again declined to take action.

Ellis did not let it drop. Instead, he said, he pursued the matter by contacting local police, the state Department of Ecology and the Jefferson County Prosecutor’s Office. Ellis’ history shows he is persistent. He said he has been involved in more than 30 lawsuits involving the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office, and added that he’s won a number of those.

STATE INVESTIGATION

Ellis appealed to the state Board of Health, calling on that panel to overturn Jefferson County Public Health’s decision against taking action on the house.

In a Nov. 12, 2014 memo on the case prepared by state board vice chair Keith Grellner, Grellner said that Ellis’ complaint was reviewed and that three of the four witnesses Ellis cited in his written complaint were interviewed.

Neither the state board investigator nor the Leader was able to get landlord Bent Meyer to return calls.

“There was no evidence found or presented that proves that hazardous chemicals were used to manufacture illegal drugs at 1507 31st St., Port Townsend, Wa.,” Grellner wrote in a conclusion. “There was no evidence found or presented that a law enforcement agency or property owner notified Jefferson County Public Health” that the property was contaminated, he continued.

“The sample results submitted by Mr. Ellis did not provide grounds for Jefferson County Public Health to post the property or conduct further inspections under RCW 64.44 and WAC 246.205,” he added.

And finally, he said that public records requests resulted in no findings or documentation that there was ever a meth lab on the property.

LOCKE: LAWS TOO STRICT

Locke said he is pushing to relax state cleanup laws related to buildings used as drug labs, laws that he helped to write. Locke said the cleanup threshold is so low today that it impacts the supply of public housing. When traces of meth are found in housing projects, Locke said, cleanup crews are “charging tens of thousands of dollars” to do “very destructive cleanups” of homes “when there is no evidence that the amount of meth detected is dangerous.”

It is not a new subject for Locke.

“I felt especially strong about this code because I helped write it,” Locke said last week. In the late 1990s, Locke said, clandestine drug labs were a real problem. “We had several in Jefferson County and hundreds around the state,” he said.

But today, Locke said, meth labs are a much smaller problem, because the market is flooded with cheap meth made in Mexican superlabs. “There’s a very small amount of shake-and-bake,” he said of meth that is made in 2-liter soda bottles. “Meth labs have virtually disappeared, and those that do exist, exist on a very small scale.”

But those strict cleanup laws from a decade ago are still on the books, he said.
What is happening now is that any tiny amount of meth – even from smoking it – can trigger a massive cleanup that involves practically tearing the house apart.

“The point is, the cleanup standard is so low, we’ve been urging the state to raise the cleanup standard,” he said.

Locke is proposing the state raise its cleanup standards from 0.1 micrograms to 1.5 micrograms per 100 square centimeters, which is the level the state of California recommends based on a 2007 study, according to public health department minutes from April 17, 2014.

“Current cleanup protocols call for all drywall, carpeting, appliances and personal possessions to be removed,” state the minutes. “This is expensive and has limited the availability of public housing because units are closed and/or demolished rather than cleaned.”

“The law was not written to compel cleanup of residences where the only thing that has happened is the smoking of meth,” Locke said. He said tiny amounts of meth on surfaces of things, such as floors, aren’t dangerous unless you do something like prepare food on them.

Locke said that at a recent state hearing, even the Peninsula Housing Authority testified that the law, as written, is having an impact on public housing because of the high cost of cleanup. He noted that public housing is already in short supply.

PROTECTING RENTERS

Again, Ellis isn’t buying it.

“By asking to relax these standards, it sets up landlords to be able to move people into contaminated houses without legal recourse,” Ellis said in August. “It sets up renters as second-class citizens.”
“I’m going to sue them over what they have done. It’s discrimination,” he said.
Ellis said he still suffers from his days in that Port Townsend rental home, but he’s moved out to the country and is starting to feel better. He asserts that Locke and county officials are trying to protect their tax base.

“Anyone who owns property here, they give protection to. But some child goes and gets in that house and gets sick, there’s no protection,” Ellis said."

Source
http://www.ptleader.com/news/pt-meth-lab-complaint-dismissed/article_5ae257ea-7502-11e4-a6dc-0787963ae368.html

Barry Ellis State of Washington Complaint

"My name is Barry Ellis. I am here today to address a situation which was not dealt with
appropriately by Jefferson County Health Dept.

My former girlfriend and myself took occupancy of a residence owned by Bent and
Joanne Meyer located at 1507 31st Street in Port Townsend in late April of 2011.

During my fourteen months at this residence, I experienced internal bleeding, two emergency
surgeries, numerous medical procedures, an attempted suicide by my former girlfriend
and my fiancée required medical attention right after moving in with me.

In April 2012, neighbors of ours, Denise Early and Paula Martin (Guardian ad Litem
Jefferson County), told us that the owners had cleaned up remnants of a meth lab two
weeks before I moved into this home.

I then contacted Bent Meyer, the owner of the residence and he refused to address the situation but did tell me to move out immediately.

When I asked for permission to have the premises tested for meth residue, I was locked
out of the residence without a court order.

I had contacted Marjorie Boyd at the Jefferson County Health Dept. and to my surprise,
she stated there was nothing she could do except if the Port Townsend Police Dept.
notified her or the owner. I had also contacted Sgt. Green at the Port Townsend Police
Dept., and in essence was told, this was a civil matter.

Before I was locked out of this residence, I removed items from the house and had them
tested for meth residue and forwarded the results to Marjorie Boyd at the Jefferson
County Health Dept., which were between two and twenty six times the legal limit (See
exhibit A/B/C), and was again told there was nothing she could do.

I then contacted Sgt. Kaare at the Port Townsend Police Dept. and he initiated a hazmat
investigation report # 2013-00000872 (See exhibit D/E). In doing so, Sgt. Kaare spoke
with the Jefferson County Health Dept., and was told not to open a case on this matter
and in response Sgt. Kaare told them “I’m covering our ass on this one”, and opened a
case number on it. Through a public disclosure request, I asked who Sgt. Kaare spoke
with at Jefferson County Health Dept., but he could not recall (see exhibit F). I also spoke
with Ms. Armstrong at the Dept. of Ecology, and she also forwarded the lab results to
Jefferson County Health Dept. I received letters from Mr. Jarrod Keefer, Marjorie Boyd
and Christy Fiedler which I want to discuss now.

In short, the letter from Ms. Fiedler reads:

We do not have the authority to respond to this type of complaint except when it is
referred to us from a law enforcement agency or the property owner. If we are requested
by either law enforcement or a property owner to investigate a property for potential or
known contamination, then we would carry out duties as outlined in RCW 64.44 and
WAC 246-205 (See exhibit G). In short, the letter from Mr.Keefer reads:

Jefferson County Public Health Dept. received the above referenced report from the City
of Port Townsend Police Dept. on February 6, 2013. As we stated in our letter on
November 2nd, upon referral or request by law enforcement and/or the propertyowner ,
we will post and inspect the site. We have yet to receive, from law enforcement or the
property owner, a notification of potential contamination at that address due to the
manufacture of illegal drugs ( See exhibit H).

Exhibits D&E were the notifications of potential and verified contamination given to
Jefferson County Health Dept. in February 2013 by the Port Townsend Police Dept. and
by the Washington State Dept.of Ecology.

In a letter drafted by Mr. Keefer that was received through a public disclosure request
(See exhibit I), Mr. Keefer refers to me as Mr.Dundee which is corrected in an email
from David Alvarez (See exhibit J). The letter goes on to state that “the police report does
not confirm that the site is an illegal drug manufacturing lab”.

Our jurisdiction is limited
to the illegal manfacture of drugs. I am now going to read the RCW, WAC and Jefferson
County ordinance. Nowhere in these laws will you read or hear the term “illegal drug
manufacturing lab”

Source and Full Document with Exhibits Click Below
http://sboh.wa.gov/Portals/7/Doc/Meetings/2014/08-13/WSBOH-08-13-14-Tab05c.pdf

Jill Buhler

JCPH ADMINISTRATION

Tom Locke
Health Officer
Jefferson County












Jean Baldwin
Director








Julia Danskin
Public Health Supervisor

Veronica Shaw
Deputy Director &
Chief Operations Director

Jared Keefer
Environmental Health & Water Quality Director

Dr. Thomas H. Locke, MD

Is it a conflict of interest to be on multiple boards such as this?

Jill Buhler
Jefferson County Board of Health

Jill Buhler
Hospital Commissioner

http://www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/index.php?board-of-health-1

Links to more Research

Complaint Details

http://sboh.wa.gov/Portals/7/Doc/Meetings/2014/08-13/WSBOH-08-13-14-Tab05c.pdf

Jefferson County Public Health Meeting Minutes on this Topic

http://www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/pdf/BOH%20minutes%20-%20April%202014.pdf

http://www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/pdf/2014%20March%20Signed%20Minutes.pdf

Jefferson County Public Health Adopted Meth Lab Regulations

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiVEhQOVRhWTFuYkk/edit

Ex - Pastor Bent Meyer Research Links

"Bent is now a highly respected counselor in the Seattle area who specializes in helping those who are abused by churches. TWW encourages all those, who have been hurt by a church and are in need of counseling, to avail themselves of his services link. He has walked that difficult path and is in a unique position to be of assistance."
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/06/22/bent-myer-speaks-out-about-redemption-groups-at-mark-driscolls-mars-hill/

Yet Counselor Bent Meyer is a slumlord, and has a total disregard for the law, and for the civil and human rights of the tenants of his rentals. 

http://northwestfamilylife.org/find-a-counselor/brent-meyer-ma-lmhca/
Bent Meyer Counselor

http://joyfulexiles.com/tag/bent-meyer/

Confessed Betrayal
http://joyfulexiles.com/2014/08/28/new-disclosures-by-former-mh-pastorelder-bent-meyer/

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/06/22/bent-myer-speaks-out-about-redemption-groups-at-mark-driscolls-mars-hill/

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004020898_webmarshill18m.html

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/01/30/fired-mars-hill-elder-breaks-his-silence/

http://northwestfamilylife.org/find-a-counselor/brent-meyer-ma-lmhca/

http://www.paradigmcounselingps.com/

Meth Lab Clean Up Guidelines in other areas

http://health.mo.gov/atoz/pdf/MethLabCleanupGuidelines.pdf

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/LPDnew/methlabs/meth.htm

http://sai-dc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/meth_lab_guidelines.pdf

http://www.methlabcleanup.com/meth%20cleanup%20laws.htm

Washington Meth Lab Clean Up Laws

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.44

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246.205

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.06.020

Dangers of Living in a Home that was a Meth Lab

"Houses formerly used as meth labs, called meth houses, put their residents at risk of serious health consequences, says Stan Smith, a doctoral student at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Drug Endangered Children Task Force, a division of the California Drug Enforcement Agency.

Upon moving into a meth house, people have experienced short-term health problems ranging from migraines and respiratory difficulties to skin irritation and burns. Long-term problems are less well known, but the results from a 2009 study in Toxological Sciences suggest that methamphetamine chemicals may cause cancer in humans.

And because children have small, developing bodies and a tendency to play on the ground and put things in their mouths, they are especially susceptible to adverse health effects from meth toxins. “When we go into a lab, if there are children, the first thing we do is take the children to the hospital and assess them for contamination,” said Smith.

The chemicals used in methamphetamine production are highly toxic and range from pseudoephenadrine — the main ingredient in meth and active ingredient in decongestants — to any one of 32 other precursor chemicals. These include acetone, the active ingredient in nail polish remover, and phosphine, a widely used insecticide.

Home-cooking meth spreads toxins to every inch of the room where the meth was cooked and beyond. Nothing escapes contamination — the carpet, walls, furniture, drapes, air ducts, even the air itself becomes toxic. “Ingesting some of these chemicals, even a tiny drop, can cause immediate death,” said Smith."

Read More Click Below
http://scienceline.org/2010/04/are-you-living-in-a-former-meth-lab/


http://www.ovc.gov/publications/bulletins/children/pg5.html

http://methlabhomes.com/about-us/my-meth-lab-home-story/

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/12/real_estate/home-meth-lab/

http://www.methinyourhouse.com/health-effects-of-third-hand-meth.html#.VIJqcDHF-2g

Tonkon Torp Law Firm Conspired with Obsidian Finance Group and Others - Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox files Attorney General Complaint.

To download First Edition of Oregon Attorney General Complaint against David Aman, Tonkon Torp, Obsidian Finance Group, Judge Randall Dunn, Perkins Coie, Judge Michael Simon, Department of Justice Trustee Pamela Griffith, Sussman Shank, Leon Simson, and more...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sHAC9awmtiQuzbZJPf4wKNvJ1j4RSB-YuOq6ZW2Gdzo/edit?usp=sharing

"Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick and David Brown as well as Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Tonkon Torp lawyers David Aman and Steven Wilker have bullied me, sued me, harassed me, threatened and intimidated me, conspired with others to incite hate and harass me, criminally slander and defame me in big and small media world wide, flat out lie about me with actual malice, ruin my life and family relationships, ruin my ability to get an income or rent a home, and all to hide their involvement in the high finance crimes and unethical actions behind the scenes of the Summit Bankruptcy."

Download and read More, or just View
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sHAC9awmtiQuzbZJPf4wKNvJ1j4RSB-YuOq6ZW2Gdzo/edit

EXPOSE Corruption via BLOG. You are Media. You are the NEWS. a Bit about the "Muckraker". Expose Corruption Folks, Stand Up, Stand OUT. Be a "Muckraker"

"The term muckraker refers to reform-minded journalists who wrote largely for all popular magazines and continued a tradition of investigative journalism reporting; muckrakers often worked to expose social ills and corporate and political corruption. 

Muckraking magazines—notably McClure's of publisher S. S. McClure—took on corporate monopolies and crooked political machines while raising public awareness of chronic urban poverty, unsafe working conditions, and social issues like child labor.

The muckrakers are most commonly associated with the Progressive Era period of American history. The journalistic movement emerged in the United States after 1900 and continued to be influential until World War I, when the movement came to an end through a combination of advertising boycotts, dirty tricks and patriotism.^[1]

Before World War I, the term "muckraker" was used to refer in a general sense to a writer who investigates and publishes truthful reports to perform an auditing or watchdog function. 

In contemporary use, the term describes either a journalist who writes in the adversarial or alternative tradition, or a non-journalist whose purpose in publication is to advocate reform and change.^[2] Investigative journalists view the muckrakers as early influences and a continuation of watchdog journalism.

The term is a reference to a character in John Bunyan's classic Pilgrim's Progress, "the Man with the Muck-rake" that rejected salvation to focus on filth. It became popular after PresidentTheodore Roosevelt referred to the character in a 1906 speech; Roosevelt acknowledged that "the men with the muck rakes are often indispensable to the well being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck..."

Source and Lot's More

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker

"Ida Minerva Tarbell (November 5, 1857 – January 6, 1944) was an American teacher, author and journalist. She was one of the leading "muckrakers" of the progressive era. She wrote many notable magazine series and biographies. She is best known for her 1904 book The History of the Standard Oil Company, which was listed as No. 5 in a 1999 list by New York University of the top 100 works of 20th-century American journalism.^[1] She depicted John D. Rockefeller as crabbed, miserly, money-grabbing, and viciously effective at monopolizing the oil trade."

Source and Lot's More

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Tarbell

"The Brass Check is a muckraking exposé of American journalism by Upton Sinclair published in 1919. It focuses mainly on newspapers and the Associated Press wire service, along with a few magazines. Other critiques of the press had appeared, but Sinclair reached a wider audience with his personal fame and lively, provocative writing style.^[1] Among those critiqued was William Randolph Hearst, who made routine use of yellow journalism in his widespread newspaper and magazine business.

Sinclair called The Brass Check "the most important and most dangerous book I have ever written."(p. 429) ^[2] The University of Illinois Press released a new edition of the book in 2003, which contains a preface by Robert McChesney and Ben Scott.

The text is also freely available on the Internet, as Sinclair opted not to copyright the text in an effort to maximize its readership.

For much of Sinclair's career he was known as a "two book author": for writing The Jungle and The Brass Check.^[3] Sinclair organized ten printings of The Brass Check in its first decade and sold over 150,000 copies. To maximize his readership, he did not take advantage of the opportunity to copyright the book.^[3]"

^{Source and More}

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brass_Check}

^"Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr. (September 20, 1878 – November 25, 1968), was an American author who wrote close to one hundred books in many genres. He achieved popularity in the first half of the twentieth century, acquiring particular fame for his classic muckraking novel, The Jungle (1906). 

It exposed conditions in the U.S. meat packing industry, causing a public uproar that contributed in part to the passage a few months later of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act.^[1] In 1919, he published The Brass Check, amuckraking exposé of American journalism that publicized the issue of yellow journalism and the limitations of the “free press” in the United States. Four years after the initial publication of The Brass Check, the first code of ethics for journalists was created.^[2] Time magazine called him "a man with every gift except humor and silence."^[3] In 1943, he won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.

Sinclair also ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Socialist, and was the Democratic Party nominee for Governor of California in 1934, though his highly progressive campaign was defeated rather soundly."

Source and More

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair