Tuesday, December 16, 2014

"The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned the District Court’s ruling and declared that Cox was a journalist and therefore protected by the freedom of speech laws and the First Amendment."

NOW as a Matter of Law and Case Precedence, Due to the Crystal Cox Case ALL Bloggers are Legally Protected to Break the News and Report the News just as any main stream, institutional press Journalist, no matter who they work for.


"JOURNALIST OR BLOGGER: PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR NOT"

by Thomas Halek

"The opinions of the courts decide whether a blogger is a journalist and afforded the rights provided under the First Amendment.

DEFINITION OF A JOURNALIST

Dr. Anthony Curtis, Mass Communication Dept., University of North Carolina at Pembroke, in an article titled What is Journalism said, “Journalism is the practice of investigating and reporting events, issues and trends to the mass audiences of print, broadcast and online media such as newspapers, magazines and books, radio and television stations and networks, and blogs and social and mobile media.”

"IN THE EYES OF THE COURTS

How the courts have ruled on whether a blogger is a journalist and protected by the First Amendment has varied. In a paper titled, The Future of Online Legal Journalism, written by Christopher J. Davey, the Director of Public Information for the Supreme Court of Ohio, said, “The court speaks only through their opinions.” In the paper, Davey describes how the legal system’s view of on-line journalism has grown and changed since 1964 and the consequences because of it.

OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP v. CRYSTAL COX

On Mashable.com a headline reads, “Judge Hits Blogger With $2.5 Million Charge for Not Being a Journalist.” The case is OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP v. CRYSTAL COX. In The Atlantic, Robinson Meyer published an article U.S. Court: Bloggers Are Journalists. In the article, Meyer describes the case and the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit ruling.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned the District Court’s ruling and declared that Cox was a journalist and therefore protected by the freedom of speech laws and the First Amendment.

EMERITUS PROFESSOR JAMES PIELEMEIER INTERVIEW

Emeritus Professor James Pielemeier, a retired law professor from Hamline University, in an interview said, “It did seem to me that there was a trend towards treating bloggers like journalists in some areas, such as statutory Reporter’s Privileges (e.g. about confidential sources), at least if the statutory language arguably permitted such a result.” Pielemeier also said, “In general, there seemed to be a trend towards treating bloggers like journalists in other areas of first amendment law.”

Source and Full Article; Check it Out.
http://www.thomashalek.com/?page_id=419

A MAJOR Federal Victory by Blogger Crystal Cox paves the way for ALL Bloggers to Be Protected in a Court of Law to REPORT the "NEWS".

"In contrast, media resides in a legal framework that is deeply valued and protected. Since before theFirst Amendment of the Constitution was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, America stood out for its high tolerance of free speech and legal protection of the press. 

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost," wrote Thomas Jefferson to Dr. James Currie in 1786. 

Liberty was to be more valued than the dangers of defamation, a lesson that President Jefferson would learn for himself when mud began to be slung his way.

James Madison, 1st Amendment advocate/Wikipedia
That freedom and its supporting structures have become the air we breathe, ingrained institutionally and psychologically with the public and legally within our country's basic body of law.
Bloggers and website hosts can be thankful for their extensive protection from defamation lawsuits, like the attempts by former franchisor Mark Golob and personal injury attorney Nikolaus Reed, to two seismic events that have moved America farther down the road and further away from other countries in what it means to have a free press—New York Times Co. v. Sullivan andSection 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Newspapers had been weighed down by libel lawsuits from southern states that had a chilling effect on journalists reporting about civil rights violators. 
They acted as a news deterrent because the press feared that they would incur a defamation lawsuit by those cast in an unflattering light. The 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed all that. According to Justice William Brennan in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling ofNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to provide that "debate on public issues ... [should be] … uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." It created a "malice standard." It didn't matter if a journalist made errors in reporting. 
What mattered was if a report was reckless in its disregard of truth because of malice, which is difficult to prove.
The Civil Rights movement, Vietnam and then Watergate all eroded the public's faith in government and eventually corporate institutions. Enron, Arthur Anderson, AIG and Lehman Brothers only accelerated that distrust. 
For the sake of more open discussion and transparency, the public and the laws have greatly increased in toleration of attacks on reputations.
Then came Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Online host intermediaries like social media's Blue MauMau, Twitter, Facebook, Blogspot, UnhappyFranchisee or Yelp are not held liable for the writings and speech posted by others on their sites.
"I think Section 230 is the Internet equivalent of New York Times v Sullivan," says attorney Paul Steinberg. In essence, host providers of public forums are not liable for what people post on their site. "That fundamentally changed the game." Steinberg argues that social media couldn't exist without the legal protections of Section 230.
The win in the Superior Court of Mendocino County, California, by Sean Kelly comes just a few months after a major federal victory by another blogger."

Source and Full Article

For More

Bloggers all over the US are Rejoicing at the Ground Breaking Decision in the Crystal Cox Case. Now ALL Bloggers have Equal rights to REPORT the News and Break the NEWS. Equal to any mainstream Journalist or Reporter.

"On January 17, 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court issued its decision giving Cox the same protection as a journalist. Interestingly enough, the decision was based in part on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Court wrote, in part:
The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.

As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.”

Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones.
Bloggers all over the US are rejoicing as are we.

The decision is short, so we are including it below the fold."

Source and Full Document
http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2014/01/19/bloggers-and-first-amendment-fans-rejoice/

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

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group; Copyright Troll Lawyers – Meet Porn Valley and Hollywood Extortionists – America’s Justice System Enables Them to Stalk, Bully and Blackmail YOU! They Also Enable Sex Trafficking of YOUR Daughters!!

Marc Randazza Exploiting Children. Marc Randazza Extortion? "Copyright Troll Lawyers – Meet Porn Valley and Hollywood Extortionists – America’s Justice System Enables Them to Stalk, Bully and Blackmail YOU! They Also Enable Sex Trafficking of YOUR Daughters!!"

Copyright Troll Lawyers – Meet Porn Valley and Hollywood Extortionists – America’s Justice System Enables Them to Stalk, Bully and Blackmail YOU! They Also Enable Sex Trafficking of YOUR Daughters!!

"EDITORIAL:  Our American judicial system has given these criminal attorneys full access to the World’s Internet information so that they can threaten, harass, stalk, bully and EXTORT money from any average person who has visited their sleazy clients sites and downloaded a video THE CLIENTS THEMSELVES MOST LIKELY UPLOADED. I reported on this a long time ago. Porn Valley owns ALL the piracy sites so they sue themselves to get permission to use the information they’ve illegally data mined. They have set the World up big time with this international scam!!
We have all witnessed the truth about these porn tube sites that are accused of piracy and exactly where they are getting YOUR personal information from. They own these sites and they already have your information. They’ve been illegally data mining for years now. What they needed was the ability to use it to run one of their usual scams on the unsuspecting public without criminal reprisals. AMERICA’S COURT SYSTEM did just that when they told them they could go after you for using their piracy of their own content.
Is one of these trolls your attorney?? Does he live in your neighborhood?? Is he someone you know or that has access to your children??
If so, please be advised that most of these snake oil attorneys are nothing more than criminals helping criminals extort hardworking American’s money after luring innocent people to their sites and offering free content. These COURT SANCTIONED TROLLS are working for some of the WORST sex traffickers, pedophiles and sexual predators IN THE WORLD!! They are working for ORGANIZED CRIME, you know, the MOB!!
BEWARE of letting your children anywhere near the following people. You have no idea who they really are and who else they may  expose your children to. Your children could end up kidnapped and working as sex slaves in Porn Valley or Hollywood. We believe they may be kidnapping them young and keeping them hidden in locked places until they get old enough to pass for 18. Then they give them plastic surgery to alter their looks, obtain a fake ID and documentation (costs $250 in Porn Valley) and you have ready made pornstars who were groomed from childhood and have no idea what reality is or what their prior lives were.  It’s happening everyday in Porn Valley, Hollywood and The New World Order and obviously, our justice system isn’t going to stop them because THEY ARE A PART OF THEM!!
God help us all!! (and pray for me and mine for even posting this)

Marc Randazza – VERIFIED PV ATTY AND EMPLOYS STALKERS
Neil H. Rubin of Neil Rubin PLLCNeil H. Rubin
Evan F. Stone of Law Offices of Evan StoneEvan F. Stone-VERIFIED PV ATTY
Jonathan E. Moskin of Foley & Lardner, LLPJonathan E. Moskin
Peter J. Korneffel Jr. of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLPPeter J. Korneffel Jr.
Michael W. Fattorosi of Fattorosi & Associates PCMichael W. Fattorosi – VERIFIED CYBERSTALKER & PV ATTY
Ira M. Siegel of Law Offices of Ira M. SiegelIra M. Siegel -
John Britton Payne of Foley & Lardner, LLPJohn Britton Payne
Brian C. Roche, Gerald C. Pia Jr. of Roche Pia LLCBrian C. Roche
Aaron Y. Silverstein of Saunders & Silverstein LLP Aaron Y. Silverstein
Raphael J. Whitford of Steele Hansmeier PLLC Raphael J. Whitford
Douglas M. Mcintyre Douglas M. Mcintyre
Brett Langdon Gibbs or Brett L. Gibbs of Steele Hansmeier, PLLC. Brett Langdon Gibbs
Charles Calvin Maddox or Charles C. Maddox of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey Charles C Maddox
Jason Allan Fischer or Jason A. Fischer of Fischer Law PL Jason Allan Fischer
Kenneth J. Ford (John) Law Office of Adult Copyright Company. Age: 36 Bio: Vice-President of the Martinsburg Chapter of Kiwanis International. HomeTown: Martinsburg, WV Date Of Birth: December 8, 1974 Kenneth John Ford
David Ludwig of Dunlap Grubb & Weaver PC  David Ludwig
Nicholas A. Kurtz of Dunlap Grubb & Weaver PC Nicholas A. Kurtz
D. Gill Sperlein of The Law Office of D. Gill Sperlein D. Gill Sperlein
Donald Melvin Gindy or Donald M. Gindy of Donald M Gindy PLC Donald Melvin Gindy
Jason A. (Auron) Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group Jason Auron Kotzker
Samantha H. Evans of Bowles Cohn & Crow LLP Samantha H. Evans-How Could You??
Ignatius A. Grande of Di Santo LLP Ignatius A. Grande
Adam M. Silverstein of Cavalluzzi & Cavalluzzi Adam M. Silverstein
Alexander O. Lian of Lian & Associates Alexander O. Lian
Paul R Hansmeier or PAUL A. RAJKOWSKI of Steele Hansmeier PLLC Paul R Hansmeier
Jon Alexander Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle and Hafey LLC Jon Alexander Hoppe
Jerald J Bonifield of Bonifield & Rosenstengel, P.C. Jerald J Bonifield
Jon E Rosenstengel of Bonifield & Rosenstengel, P.C. Jon E Rosenstengl
Timothy V. Anderson of Anderson & Associates Timothy V. Anderson
Andrew Contiguglia Of Contiguglia Fazzone P.C Andrew Contiguglia
Bonnie C. Park Of The McDaniel Law Firm, P.C Bonnie C. Park-Unbelievable
Jay R. McDaniel Of The McDaniel Law Firm, P.C Jay R. McDaniel
Aman “Tip” Barber, III Aman “Tip” Barber, III
Christopher P Fiore Christopher P Fiore
Dan Grubb Dan Grubb
Ellis L. Bennett Ellis L. Bennett
James C. White James C. White
Jeff Simpson Jeff Simpson
Jeff Weaver Jeff Weaver
John Steele John Steele
  Paul Hansmeier Paul Hansmeier
Peter Hansmeier Peter Hansmeier
Tom Dunlap Tom Dunlap
"

Source of This Marc Randazza Extortion Post

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Marc Randazza AGAIN Admits to have BEEN Crystal Cox's attorney yet keeps whining that he was NOT my Attorney. Marc Randazza agrees to "bow out" as Crystal Cox's attorney then claims he was NEVER her attorney.

Attorney Marc Randazza continues to FLAT OUT LIE in Court Motions and Claim he was not Crystal Cox's attorney yet there is so much that points out that this is NOT TRUE.


"REQUEST NO. 3:

Anyway phone records, emails, faxes, mail, or records of documentation of any kind between
you and anyone, including and not limited to Judge Marco Hernandez, Michael Spreadbury, ...., Martin Cain, Lara Pearson, Alexandria Mayers, Sean Boushie, Peter L. Michaelson, Eric Turkewitz, Leo Mulville, Jordan Rushie, Kenneth P. White, Ari Bass aKa Michael Whiteacre, Sean Tompkins, Eugene Volokh, Liberty Media Company and all associates, any Porn company what so ever, Stephen Lamont, Pamela Simon, Ted Bernstein, Alan Rose or any other party, in which you made statement to about Crystal Cox in any way and especially whereby you accused Cox of criminal activity.


"RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3:

Counterdefendant objects to Request No. 3 on the grounds that the request is unintelligible,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, lacks specificity, and requests documents
which are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.

Counterdefendant further objects as the request seeks documents which are protected by
the attorney/client privilege and/or work product privilege. Furthermore, some of the documents
requested are, or should be, in Cox’s possession – for example, communications with Eugene
Volokh, her attorney. Such discovery requests should be directed at him. "

Source of Marc Randazza Response
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiUHBIcDltaWRKQ28/edit

Odd that Marc Randazza is claiming attorney client protection when he claims he was not my attorney. He STOLE my work product but seems to think his "work product" has value and worth but mine can just be STOLEN ???



INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

Did you have phone conversations with Eugene Volokh and state that you represented Cox and
discuss with him your strategy, or a deal you were trying to make with the opposition, Plaintiff’s
attorney David Aman?

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

"Counterdefendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overly broad, not limited in time and scope, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Counterdefendant further objects because this interrogatory is in excess of the 25 allowable
interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result,
Counterdefendant is not required to respond to the same. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, Counterdefendant responds as follows:

Counterdefendant spoke with Eugene Volokh in December 2011. 

Randazza informed Volkokh that if he was going to represent Cox, that Randazza would gladly bow out, and defer to Volokh to handle the case.

Volokh, however, said that he would prefer that Randazza co-counsel the case with him due to Volokh’s stated lack of litigation experience. Counterdefendant and Volokh discussed possible strategies that he and Volokh thought might be good ideas during that call.

Counterdefendant and Volokh both discussed the fact that Cox’s interests would be better served
through settlement."

Source ( Page 18 )
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiM0hkaW9IYVV2VGc/view?usp=sharing


Why in the world would you would you "bow out" Mr Randazza if you were NEVER My attorney in the first place? What gives you the right to choose for me, make decision for me and to bow out as my attorney if you are saying that you were not my attorney ??? Hmmm


How in the world does attorney Marc Randazza have the legal right to bow out and to "defer" me, the client to another attorney and then defer to that attorney on the case?

WOW, Marc Randazza world's biggest Hypocrite Attorney.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Randazza V. Cox Lanham Act, Trademark Infringement, District of Nevada; Plaintiff Marc Randazza HAS no Case against Blogger Crystal Cox and NEVER Did.

Randazza et al v. Cox et al
District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040

Cause;  15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Nature Of Suit:  840 Trademark

Below is a Video of me, Crystal Cox discussing
the Original Complaint and Reading some of it.




Here is a Link to the Original Complaint attorney Marc Randazza filed against Blogger Crystal Cox to shut down and steal her gripe sites exercising her Free Speech Rights over him.

Below is a DENIAL of a Summary Judgement in Which
Shoots Down ALL of Marc Randazza, Plaintiff's ALLEGED "cause of action".


Below is a Video of Me Reading the Denial of Randazza's Summary



Here is the Entire Docket
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

Randazza et al v. Cox et al
District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040

Cause;  15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Nature Of Suit:  840 Trademark

1) VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL
CYBERPIRACY PROTECTIONS
– 15 U.S.C. § 8131

2) CYBERSQUATTING - 15 U.S.C. §
1125(d)

3) RIGHT OF PUBLICITY – NRS
597.810

4) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF
PUBLICITY

5) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF
INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION

6) CIVIL CONSPIRACY



Friday, December 5, 2014

Oh Know NOT Edelman PR, they are not very GOOD at PR Marc Randazza, why don't you try telling the TRUTH and Obeying the LAW.

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Referring URL:
(No referring link)
Host Name:Browser:Chrome 39.0
IP Address:12.38.190.9 — [Label IP Address]Operating System:Win7
Location:New York, United StatesResolution:1600x900
Returning Visits:0Javascript:Enabled
Visit Length:Not ApplicableISP:Edelman Pr

Navigation Path

DateTimeWebPage
  
(No referring link)
5 Dec10:14:12