Friday, June 27, 2014

Jenner & Block Stat

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Search Referral:www.google.com/ (Keywords Unavailable) 
Host Name:Browser:IE 8.0
IP Address:38.98.69.210 — [Label IP Address]Operating System:Win7
Location:New York, United StatesResolution:1280x1024
Returning Visits:0Javascript:Enabled
Visit Length:1 hour 30 mins 7 secsISP:Jenner & Block Llp

Navigation Path

DateTimeWebPage
  www.google.com/ (Keywords Unavailable) 
27 Jun09:11:40
27 Jun09:11:58
  www.google.com/ (Keywords Unavailable) 
27 Jun10:41:47

Monday, June 2, 2014

Marc Randazza, Las Vegas Attorney VIOLATES clients Rights and uses privileged information against his former client.

" Cox alleges that Randazza used privileged information he gained while acting as her attorney to harm her, paint her in a false light, sabotage her Ninth Circuit appeal, defame and discredit her, and cause her "massive and constant duress for 2 years and counting."[46]

"In Nevada, legal malpractice is premised upon an attorney-client relationship, a duty owed to the client by the attorney, breach of that duty, and the breach as proximate cause of the client's damages."[47]

However, even without an express contract, "[i]t is axiomatic that an attorney who undertakes representation of an individual owes duties to that individual, even if the individual never assented to the representation. Otherwise, an attorney could never face liability for unauthorized representation."[48]

Cox alleges that despite that fact that Marc Randazza "had no contract with Cox [and] had not committed to representation," he attempted to negotiate a case on her behalf, discouraged other attorneys from taking her case by representing that he was her attorney, and used information that he obtained during her initial case consultation against her after she declined his representation.[49]

Randazza argues that Cox's allegations that there was no assent to representation dooms Cox's claim because there is no attorney-client relationship upon which to base a malpractice claim.

This argument ignores the allegations that Randazza actually represented Cox in various ways and did so without her authorization. Taking the allegations in Cox's counterclaim as true, even absent an express contract, Randazza's actions could subject him to liability for unauthorized legal representation. Moreover, Cox's allegation that Randazza used attorney-client-privileged information obtained during an initial-case consultation to harm Cox's reputation is sufficient to state a legal malpractice claim. Randazza's request to dismiss Cox's fourth claim for legal malpractice is denied."

Source
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=obsidian+v.+cox&hl=en&as_sdt=6,48&as_vis=1&case=26198771823450302&scilh=0

Proposed Amended Counter Claim;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GTxOuEb5WKdli0KQy5Ic7zHvVPQDZYRIDnG8jrBlfhM/edit

Oh and YES Marc Randazza DID Violate my First Amendment Rights. He shut down blogs, facebook sites, took my search engine ranking, took domain names and wiped out blogs and more to SUPPRESS my speech, the TRUTH speaks for itself.

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Guess Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group, AND Tonkon Torp Law Firm had better change their Fraud on the Court, Flat out Lying in MOTIONS, standard of practice. EXPOSE Fraud on the Court.

Attorneys such as Ronald Green and Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group AND David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm SHOULD be held accountable for flat out lies to the court, perjured declarations, motions that state false facts, harassment and threat to litigants, bullying and FLAT OUT Fraudulent LIES on the Docket.

Oh and Gee Darn, that Enterprising Corruption, that I, Crystal Cox ALLEGE Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group AND David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm, as well as David Brown, Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group are involved in, well I suppose you better hide your "Enterprising Corruption" a little better in the future.

"ALBANY - Adopting a hard-line position against litigants who engage in deceitful and obstructionist conduct, the state Court of Appeals on Thursday said judges can toss out a case when "clear and convincing" evidence shows that an individual attempted to dupe the court.

"Fraud on the court warrants heavy sanctions, including the striking of an offending party's pleadings and dismissal of the action," Judge Jenny Rivera (See Profile) wrote in a 6-0 opinion joined by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman (See Profile) and judges Victoria Graffeo (See Profile), Susan Phillips Read (See Profile), Robert Smith (See Profile) and Eugene Pigott Jr. (See Profile). Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam (See Profile) did not take part.

In CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen, 81, the court adopted the "clear and convincing" standard of proof embraced by some federal courts rather than a more stringent standard that the defendants in this case sought. The decision provides a virtual road map on how a fraud-on-the-court finding is made, and the consequences for offenders.

Rivera said the standard applied by the federal courts "is sufficient to protect the integrity of our judicial system and discourage the type of egregious and purposeful conduct designed to undermine the truth-seeking function of the courts, and impede a party's efforts to pursue a claim or defense."

The court said that to establish fraud on the court, the non-offender must show that the offender intentionally set in motion a scheme to "hinder the fact finder's fair adjudication of the case." However, the court cautioned "dismissal is an extreme remedy" that should be reserved for "particularly egregious" conduct, such as the case decided Thursday.

"Dismissal is most appropriate in cases like this one, where the conduct is particularly egregious, characterized by lies and fabrications in furtherance of a scheme designed to conceal critical matters from the court and the non-offending party; where the conduct is perpetrated repeatedly and willfully, and established by clear and convincing evidence, such as the documentary and testimonial evidence found here," Rivera wrote.

The case involved a complicated and high stakes lawsuit rooted in a failed Manhattan hotel project more than 20 years ago.

It centered on a loan agreement dating back to the early 1990s and allegations that the defendants, developer Maurice Cohen, his wife and son conspired to avoid repaying by misrepresenting their control over entities that allegedly concealed funds from CDR, the plaintiff. While the civil matter was in discovery, the Cohens were convicted in 2010 of federal tax fraud for failing to report the same funds CDR was seeking to recover.

They each were sentenced to 10 years in prison.

After CDR sought a default judgment, then Manhattan Supreme Court Justice James Yates found clear and convincing evidence that the Cohens had committed a fraud upon the court by offering false evidence and concealing evidence. He awarded CDR more than $135 million in compensatory damages, plus about $51 million in prejudgment interest.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed in a 4-1 decision, with a dissenter arguing that a fraud on the court must be "conclusively demonstrated" and that the alleged "deceit must be admitted or undisputed," a different and higher standard than the federal courts require (NYLJ, Dec. 28, 2012).

But the Court of Appeals agreed with the "clear and convincing" standard embraced by the First Department majority in this case, not the "conclusively demonstrated" standard it used in a 2008 case, Melcher v. Apollo, 52 AD3d 244. It parted with the Appellate Division majority only with regard to Cohen's wife and said the evidence was insufficient to justify the default judgment against her.
Douglas Kellner, a partner at Kellner Herlihy Getty & Friedman, represents CDR. The Cohens are represented by David Pegno, a partner at Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky.

Enterprise Corruption

Also on Thursday, the court issued an important opinion clarifying the legal standard necessary to sustain an enterprise corruption conviction.

In a single opinion deciding People v. Kancharla, 82, and People v. Barone, 83, the 6-0 court said the Appellate Division, First Department, had applied an improper standard in reviewing the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence.

Kancharla and Barone stemmed from an investigation into Testwell Laboratories, a construction materials testing firm.

In 2008, officials at the company were charged with falsifying strength tests and inspection reports for materials used in major construction projects, including the new Yankee Stadium, the Freedom Tower and Jet Blue facilities at JFK Airport. V. Reddy Kancharla, the chief executive officer and owner of Testwell, and Vincent Barone, the vice president of engineering, were convicted at a joint trial of enterprise corruption and other charges.

The First Department vacated the enterprise corruption convictions, finding they were against the weight of the evidence because the prosecution "failed to produce any evidence that either defendant knew that test results and inspection reports were fabricated, much less that the defendants spearheaded a criminal enterprise."

The court also said that the prosecution did not establish "a leadership structure, overall planning of the criminal enterprise, or any communications between [the defendants and employees] in furtherance of the criminal enterprise."

On Thursday, the Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Graffeo, said the First Department misapplied the law.

"Direct proof … is not essential to a legally sufficient case of enterprise corruption," she wrote. "To the contrary, the overall pattern of criminal activity and the involvement of various individuals at all levels of Testwell Laboratories' corporate structure allowed the jury to infer that Kancharla and Barone, as high-level corporate officers, were aware of, participated in and directed others to commit crimes in furtherance of the Testwell Group's objectives."

Graffeo said the prosecution evidence, contrary to the finding of the First Department, was legally sufficient to sustain the enterprise corruption convictions. She said the mid-level panel's decision that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence "was infected by the same error of law."

Sourec and More
http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202654596813/Federal-Standard-Adopted-in-Fraud-on-the-Court-Conduct#ixzz31Qx461ha

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


"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
"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

"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