Randazza Legal Group and Marc Randazza is GUILTY of unethical practices, Fraud on the Courts, Violating my Constitutional Rights, Violating my Free Speech Rights, Denying me Due Process, using Privileged information gained acting as my attorney against me to further his own agenda and protect his clients in the Porn Industry.
Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group talked down to me as a client, misrepresented me, mistreated me and attempted to make deals on my behalf with the opposition in my case without discussion the deal with me, the client prior.
Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group acts outside of the law and puts his clients rights and quality of life in the back seat per say as he does as he pleases with total disregard for what is truly the best interest of his client.
Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group believes that if he takes a case for Free, then you dang well better sit down and shut up, and do what he says. Another words don't think for yourself nor question any action that he takes, that is allegedly in your best interest.
Attorney Marc Randazza offered to represent me for FREE on my Ninth Circuit Appeal, but really he was sabotaging my case and trying to STOP me from appealing so that he could protect the Porn Industry from the Implications of my First Amendment Case.
Plus, the "for Free" turned out to be approx. $5,000, but hey a case like mine would cost $75,000 he said so $5000 is just for his plane tickets and hotels, copies and such. This after I had a huge judgement, was trying to appeal which he was trying to talk me out of and clearly I had NO MONEY.
Do not trust Marc Randazza or anyone at Randazza Legal Group, do your homework.
His rates are around $10,000 a month and he is not a very good lawyer. I tried to warn the public about Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, and he sued me for a Trademark Violation and shut down my speech online that criticized him. With this he wanted awarded, what was round $10,000 a month for his attorney fees to pay his own law firm to sue his former client who was exposing him.
The Whole Hypocritical Randazza vs. Cox case docket is below
"OH and Don't Forget Marc Randazza Called Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernsteing "conspirators" in a Civil Action, long before Crystal Cox fought back and sued Marc Randazza and his co-conspirators."
I FIRED Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group due to his verbal abuse to me, running over my rights, ignoring what I wanted in my own case and treating me badly. Months later he sued me for millions and has participated in defamation, gang stalking, SLAPP lawsuits, and a constant tired of attacks since.
Over the last 2 years I have been given a lot of tips and inside information regarding Marc Randazza and have done my best to let the courts know and try and bring Marc Randazza and his law firm, Randazza Legal Group to justice. I will continue to file complaints with authorities, legal cases, and attempt to protect the public from being a victim of Marc Randazza or his law firm, Randazza Legal Group, as I have and am on a daily basis.
By Posting this Report, I hope to save YOU from being a VICTIM of Attorney Marc Randazza or his law firm, Randazza Legal Group.
Links to further research the unethical practices and organized crime connections of Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/02/2014 11:12 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Marc-Randazza-of-Randazza-Legal-Group/Las-Vegas-Nevada-89135/Marc-Randazza-of-Randazza-Legal-Group-Marc-Randazza-of-Randazza-Legal-Group-Marc-Randazza-1112488. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
#1 Consumer Comment
Marc Randazza Crystal Cox and the use of Preliminary Injunctions as a tool to Chill Speech and silence Whistle Blowers
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Monday, February 10, 2014
Crystal Cox Marc Randazza, Preliminary Injunction Wars; "Injunction against blogger critical of Miami Heat owner is overturned by appeals court" Oh and who was the Bloggers Attorney, Yep Marc Randazza who got an unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction of his own against Blogger Crystal Cox.
First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza Says that Preliminary Injunctions are Unconstitutional.
Yet Marc Randazza LIED to the Nevada Courts, GOT an unlawful, unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction against Blogger Crystal Cox, then over a year later tries to use it as criminal evidence to convince Ninth Circuit Judges to allege Crystal Cox has a history of extortion.
Marc Randazza Quote from a Motion Defending AGAINST Preliminary Injunctions
“RKA sought extraordinary relief in the form of prior restraint to enjoin .. . This relief is not recognized in this State, nor anywhere else in the Country. In addition to ignoring the First Amendment Rights and almost a century’s worth of common law, the .. court ignored virtually all procedural requirements for the issue of a preliminary injunction.” Page 5 Paragraph ii of Opening Brief Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Irina Chevaldina Appellant vs. R.K./FI Management Inc.;et.al., Appellees. Attorney for Appellant Marc J. Randazza Florida Bar No. 325566, Randazza Legal Group Miami Florida."
Source of Above Quote
a601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.30.0.pdf
I wonder If I, Crystal Cox, could Get Marc Randazza to represent me and overturn my Preliminary Injunction and the 2 years of harassment that went with it from Randazza Legal Group, Ronald Green ( ya, clearly Joking on that). But maybe someday I will get an attorney and be able to SUE Marc Randazza for what he has done to me. I have tried, but thus far Corruption Owns the Courts.
Here are a Couple of Lawsuits Against Marc Randazza and Others, Filed by Blogger Crystal Cox
Florida Case
thicscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/02/crystal-l-cox-v-randazza-legal-group.html
New Jersey, Where WIPO Panelist, Attorney Peter L. Michaelson Is
docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiN3gyM0VlUE5LdXM/edit
Ok back to Marc Randazza and his LOVE / HATE Relationship with Preliminary Injunctions.
So you see Marc Randazza gets an unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction against Blogger Crystal Cox, steals her domain names, harasses and defames her for years and then wants to WIELD this magical unconstitutional, unlawful Preliminary Injunction as evidence that Crystal Cox is an Extortionist.
Why? Because he says so that's why.
Anyway here is the latest news on the VICTORY for the Blogger
Injuction against blogger critical of Miami Heat owner is overturned by appeals court
"A Florida appeals court has overturned an injunction against a blogger whose sole topic is criticizing Miami Heat part-owner Ranaan Katz, saying the lower court wrongly applied the state's exception to First Amendment concerns for invoking prior restraint, reports Popehat.
The lower court merely considered allegations that Irina Chevaldina's blogging was both defamatory and, particularly, a tortious interference with business relationships.
There was no proof of such interference, the Third District Court of Appeals said in its opinion (PDF), and thus Florida's exception to the prior restraint rule under the First Amendment does not apply.
"Angry social media postings are now common," wrote Judge Vance Salter for the court. "Jilted lovers, jilted tenants, and attention-seeking bloggers spew their anger into fiber-optic cables and cyberspace.
But analytically, and legally, these rants are essentially the electronic successors of the pre-blog, solo complainant holding a poster on a public sidewalk in front of an auto dealer that proclaimed, 'DON'T BUY HERE! ONLY LEMONS FROM THESE CROOKS!'"
A problem would arise, the court said, if the complainant with a poster entered the dealership and harangued customers or threatened violence, but that in that instance there is well-established law which would provide remedy.
"The same well-developed body of law allows the complaining blogger to complain, with liability for money damages for defamation if the complaints are untruthful and satisfy the elements of that cause of action. Injunctive relief to prohibit such complaints is another matter altogether."
Katz, a minor owner of the professional basketball team, owns a real estate development company. Chevaldina is a former tenant, and was represented by Marc Randazza of the Randazza Legal Group and Jeffrey Crockett of Coffey Burlington in her appeal of the injunction."
Source
abajournal.com/news/article/injuction_against_blogger_critical_of_miami_heat_owner_is_overturned_by_app/
I wonder what Crystal Cox will be awarded for the Unlawful Preliminary Injunction Marc Randazza got against Her, and tried to use to set her up for crime and did use to silence speech and steal massive amounts of intellectual property and TOP search engine placement.
rkassociatesusa.blogspot.com/2014/02/rk-centers-raanan-katz-were-ordered-to.html
Let's Look at the RULING and Marc Randazza's Big VICTORY
"Irina Chevaldina appeals an order granting a preliminary injunction to “enjoin tortious interference, stalking, trespass and defamatory blogs” entered in favor of Raanan Katz and the other named appellees, plaintiffs in the circuit court. We vacate the order and injunction. "
Oh, hey, hypothetically, what if the Ruling Judge threw in, ya we overturn the Injunction but the Blogger did rob a bank apparently, just sayin". (well according to Marc Randazza's rule of law, that A ok with him)
" In this appeal, we review a temporary injunction in the circuit court action
which determined that “the Defendants have blogged extensively about the
Plaintiff and many of these blogs are arguably defamatory. Although ultimately a
defamation trial will be held, this Court ORDERS the Defendants not to enter
defamatory blogs in the future.”
The court determined that:
Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of ultimately prevailing on the
merits of their claims, and there is a substantial threat of irreparable
injury to the Plaintiffs if injunctive relief is not granted, that the
threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighs whatever damage the
injunction would cause the Defendants, and that the injunction would
not be adverse to the public interest."
Source
3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf
Wow just like Marc did to me, his claims and wala he gets a preliminary injunction. I wonder if this precedent can and WILL be used against Marc Randazza. I am Betting It WILL.
The Ruling Goes on to say, "A temporary injunction “should be granted only sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proved facts entitling it to relief.” Liberty Fin. Mortg. Corp. v. Clampitt, 667 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)."
WOW, well Marc Randazza proved NO FACTS in Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein, yet he filed gag orders, injunctions, stole blogs, shut down sites, and even redirected my blogs to a post on his blog defaming and lying about me. Oh well that's all fine because Marc Randazza WINS.
More..
"In order to establish the right to a temporary injunction the moving party must show: the likelihood of irreparable harm; the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; the substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs the possible harm to the respondent; and the granting of the temporary injunction will not disserve the public interest. E.g., City of Miami Beach v. Kuoni Destination Mgmt., Inc., 81 So. 3d 530, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
We review the temporary injunction for an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., 2 So. 3d 1100, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA
A. Injunction Against Tortious Interference and Defamatory Blogs Injunctive relief is not available to prohibit the making of defamatory or libelous statements. See, e.g., Vrasic v. Leibel, 106 So. 3d 485, 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
A temporary injunction directed to speech is a classic example of prior restraint on speech triggering First Amendment concerns. Id.
There is, however, a limited exception to the general rule where the defamatory words are made in the furtherance of the commission of another intentional tort. E.g., Murtagh v. Hurley, 40 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Zimmerman v. D.C.A. at Welleby, Inc., 505 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). "
Source of Ruling
3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf
See Crystal Cox, for some reason, has no First Amendment Rights.
So her SPEECH was shut down, just like that, no rights, no due process, no First Amendment Adjudication and yes massive irreparable damage to Crystal Cox and Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group above the law and have no liability for their actions, or so it seems.
A bit more..
"the trial court failed to make specific findings to support the elements required for the entry of an injunction. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610. “A temporary injunction that merely recites legal conclusions is insufficient to support its entry.” Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., 2 So. 3d 1100, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
The order on appeal fails to set forth factual findings justifying the entry of the temporary injunction and is therefore inconsistent with the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. Nor does the transcript of the hearing on the motion provide any such specific findings.
Conclusion
Angry social media postings are now common. Jilted lovers, jilted tenants, and attention-seeking bloggers spew their anger into fiber-optic cables and cyberspace. But analytically, and legally, these rants are essentially the electronic successors of the pre-blog, solo complainant holding a poster on a public sidewalk in front of an auto dealer that proclaimed, “DON’T BUY HERE! ONLY LEMONS FROM THESE CROOKS!”
Existing and prospective customers of the auto dealership considering such a poster made up their minds based on their own experience and research.
If and when a hypothetical complainant with the poster walked into the showroom and harangued individual customers, or threatened violence, however, the previously-protected opinion crossed the border into the land of trespass, business interference, and amenability to tailored injunctive relief.
The same well-developed body of law allows the complaining blogger to complain, with liability for money damages for defamation if the complaints are untruthful and satisfy the elements of that cause of action. Injunctive relief to prohibit such complaints is another matter altogether.
For all these reasons, the non-final “Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Tortious Interference, Stalking, Trespass, and Defamatory Blogs,” is reversed and vacated in its entirety.
The scope of our review and this opinion are confined to the claims and motions for temporary injunctive relief. We express no opinion regarding the merits of the still-pending claims for money damages by the appellees based on alleged defamation, trespass, invasion of privacy, tortious interference, and conspiracy. "
Guess this means Marc Randazza's Preliminary Injunction against Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein is reversed as well. Oh ya, the Law Does NOT apply to Marc Randazza, I keep forgetting.
Oh an Nicholas Bulgin may want to Take Note; Remember the ManwinSucks.com Preliminary Injunction.
stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/2013/01/nicholas-bulgin-fight-back-know-your.html
Oh and take a look at the Run on Preliminary Injunctions in Nevada
"ViaView, Inc. v. Chanson et al"
"Court Description: ORDER Granting 6 EX PARTE MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by ViaView, Inc. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have until 12/7/2012 to file Response to 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Plaintiff shall file reply by 12/21/2021. Motion Hearing set for 1/2/2013 02:30 PM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/30/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)"
Source
law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv01657/90093/10
Even Similiar Wording as the Preliminary Injunction Magic in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
But See in SOME Cases, a Preliminary Injunction is Unconstitutional
Preliminary Injunction are Unconstitutional Depending on Which Side your Attorney is On.
docstoc.com/docs/141369776/State-of-Nevada-Case-212-cv-02040-GMN-PAL-in-Connection-to-Irina-Chevaldina-Appellant-Appellate-Case-No-3D12-3189
In the District of Nevada, the Most Important thing is the Attorneys Pay Check, and the Law, the Constitutional Rights of Defendants, Due Process.. well that's Just Irrelevant...
Judge Gloria Navarro is THIS Nevada Attorneys SuperHERO.. it's all about the ATTORNEY making money and making a mockery of the courts on the Taxpayers Dime..
Suing Whoever they want.. then getting their attorney fees, intellectual property, fines paid to them and what ever they want in the MAGICAL Land of the District of Nevada.. Wheee.. Living is Good if you are the RIGHT Law Firm in the Fairy Prince Land of MONEY and Make Believe Called District of Nevada.
Judge Gloria Navarro Gives Some More Magic..
vegasinc.com/news/2011/jul/09/attorneys-seek-fee-injunction-against-righthaven/
vegasinc.com/news/2011/jul/06/righthaven-ordered-pay-defendants-legal-fees/
Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited
Research Links Regarding Ronald D. Green, Greenberg Traurig, Judge Navarro and More.
"The Plaintiff has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims sufficient for the Court to issue a limited Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement and inducement of copyright infringement. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) To show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must show that: (1) it owns the copyright to which its infringement claims relate; and, (2) Defendants violated one of the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the works. See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2010); Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir 1977); Educational Testing Servs. v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533, 538 (3d Cir. 1977). These two factors have been clearly established by the Plaintiff."
Source of Above Judge Gloria Navarro RULING Favoring the SAME Plaintiff
nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120621_0003126.DNV.htm/qx
So this SAME Plaintiff ALWAYS seems to show "substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim"? Really?
Why is no FBI Agent, Dept. Of Justice Agent, the Nevada Attorney General, or the U.S. Attorney General Looking at all this?
It sure seems to VIOLATE the Rights of the Targets, the Defendants in some sort of pattern of "shakedown", in my Opinion. Maybe authorities will take a look when I file my Complaints. Who knows, but someday, somehow, the TRUTH will Come Out, I Hope.
Some More Research on the Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited and this Same Attorney, who sure is GOOD at Showing Alleged "merits" of winning, Before a Defendant has any First Amendment Adjudication or Right to Due Process.
rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/nevada-district-court/98475/liberty-media-holdings-llc-v-ff-magnat-limited-et-al/summary/
Love this Part "Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings LLC. Motion ripe 6/20/2012."
I get threats of death, violence and Judge Gloria Navarro IGNORES my Real Emergency, talk about a racket... Las Vegas, the Land of Lawlessness, INDEED..
Frozen Accounts, Preliminary Injunctions, FORCED Attorney Fees? WOW, sure SEEMS like quite a racket to me, IN MY OPINION.
scribd.com/doc/105188141/Liberty-Media-Holdings-v-FF-Magnat
"Section 505 of the Copyright Act grants district courts discretion to award “
a reasonableattorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs"
Don't ya just LOVE IT, they sue their TARGET, and the Judge Forces the TARGET, VICTIM aKa Defendant to PAY the ATTORNEYS outrageous Fee's. And if you Don't SHE will Freeze your Accounts. Pattern and History, I THINK SO.. in my NON-Attorney OPINION.
Don't Forget Liberty Media Holdings allegedly is infringing on the iViewit Technology and many companies owned, at least in part by Liberty Media Holdings are named in iViewit Technology
OUTBREAK of Preliminary Injunctions, Sweeping Rapidly, Seemingly Out of Control, through the District of Nevada, yet Granny Goose Alleges these RULINGS are an "extraordinary remedy"
stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/2013/03/pro-se-litigant-investigative-blogger.html
Gee and here we all thought Judge Gloria Navarro was not Marc Randazza's Bitch and full of conflicts of interest. What a tangled web we weave over there with Greenberg, Randazza, Navarro and the gang.
The Full Hypocritical Filing of Marc Randazza Regarding the
Unconstitutional actions of Preliminary Injunctions.
Page 8 of above;
"This appeal Seeks to cure an unlawful prior restraint on the Appellant’s First Amendment rights, improperly imposed by the lower court. On November 19, 2012, the circuit court enjoined Appellant from writing, “defamatory” blogs 'in the future, despite expressly making “no findings of facts as to actual ‘violations of law by the [Appellants], except that [Appellants] have blogged extensively about the Appellee] and many of these blogs are arguably defamatory.” (RÃ/14)
The circuit court made this decision Without following the mandates of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. However, even if it had, the injunction is patently unconstitutional."
WOW, " the injunction is patently unconstitutional"
is that because Marc Randazza did not file it?
Page 10
"Months and months of litigation, thousands of dollars, and thousands of pages of documents later, RKA sought a clearly unconstitutional remedy - an injunction against alleged defamation prior to any court determination that the speech at issue was even legally capable of defamatory meaning, much less Whether it was actually defamatory, privileged, or otherwise protected by the First Amendment. (R Vl-6)
The resulting lnjunction Order was so over-broad and subject to abuse, that the RKA even sought an order for contempt based upon the Chevaldina doing no more than reporting the existence of the Order itself."
WOW again, Really? So all that money to seek a "clearly unconstitutional remedy"?
But what if the Plaintiff was Marc Randazza and the injunction chilled online speech, stole intellectual property and tormented his former client?
Oh well that's ok, see because that's Marc Riddler Randazza making a mockery of the courts and abusing his privilege and power as an attorney of law.
Oh and you see, his complaint Randazza v. Cox and Bernsteing, turns out, as he just perjured to the Ninth Circuit, the whole case was about Extortion, yet, oops he forgot to include that as a cause of action or file a criminal complaint, oh SNAP.
Full Hypocritical Motion Linked Below
docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiT3M2c1FVbHZqX2c/edit
Let's Take a Look at the Free Speech Supressing SLAPP Lawsuit in Nevada,
Randazza v. Crystal Cox and Eliot Berstein
Here is the Unconstitutional, Extortion Accusing TRO Motion against Crystal Cox and iViewit Technology Inventor, Victim of Corruption Cox was reporting on, Eliot Bernstein
Defendant Crystal Cox's Opposition to Marc Randazza's unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction
ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.30.0.pdf
Crystal Cox did not even get First Amendment Adjudication for the massive blogs, domains and websites Marc Randazza seized through an illegal, unconstitutional, seriously over reaching TRO temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction
Crystal Cox Response to TRO Motion
ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.30.0.pdf
TRO Motion Supplement, accusations of Criminal Activity of Cox and Bernstein
Defendant Crystal Cox Response to TRO Motion Supplement
Randazza TRO Motion Reply to Response
Another Randazza TRO Response, with false accusations
A letter from Ronald Green, Randazza Legal Group. A pending hearing he deems as a ruling and sends to Godaddy and WOW they give the names to Marc Randazza, just like that.
Defamatory, Over Reaching, Unconstitutional Order Ruling Against Cox and throwing in some accusations, and “pot shots” to further harass, defame and discredit Cox.
So who is it that Does not want the Attorney General involved and an Investigation by Authorities?? Well Crystal Cox wants an investigation, Marc Randazza does NOT.
Crystal Cox wanted a Criminal Investigation and asked the Court to Investigate Marc Randazza and his abuse of Crystal Cox and her informants. Cox also asked to enjoin the attorney general.
Crystal Cox wanted due process of law for the extortion allegations, what she got was judges and attorneys ganging up on her and flat out stating Crystal Cox’s guilt without Cox being on trial for or under investigation for Extortion and thereby given due process in the criminal justice system.
Motion Requesting to Investigate Marc Randazza
Marc Randazza is afraid of an investigation and “protests”, all the while accusing Blogger Crystal Cox of extorting him, which is a crime, so why object to enjoining the attorney general and an investigation?
Investigation DENIED by Judge Gloria Navarro
Motion to Enjoin Attorney General
Order Denying to bring in the Attorney General, gee and isn’t Cox involved in Felony Extortion and yet Marc Randazza and Judge Gloria Navarro, though their ethical duty, don’t want authorities or criminal investigations?? Hmmmm
ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.139.0.pdf
Take a Look at this information. Marc Wants an unconstitutional preliminary injunction he got, to serve as criminal evidence against his target, victim, Crystal Cox, in a Ninth Circuit Civil ruling NOT about extortin.
crystalcox.com/2014/02/crystal-cox-on-marc-randazzas-ninth.html
A Bit on The Ninth Circuit Rant and What Really Drives Marc Randazza
docs.google.com/document/d/1PJLtqD3SQ_twfQdTClEHNgP-Kt3scT0n6EewWWcNF-Y/edit
#2 Consumer Comment
Marc Randazza Rants Extortion and Toddler Attack But files a Civil Suit against a Penniless Blogger instead of a Criminal Complaint, WHY?
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Monday, February 10, 2014
Comment on Bob Garfields NPR, on the Media Site begs the Question, Why did Marc Randazza file a Civil Suit and WIPO claim for cybersquatting when Crystal Cox had attacked his wife and toddler and extorted him, which is a Felony?
Things that make you say, Hmmm.
"A.C. Senray
I certainly admire Marc Randazza's commitment to free speech rights. But I'm a little bit confused by his refusal to bring claims against Crystal Cox. Is he arguing that the First Amendment should overwhelm any kind of action, civil or criminal, for defamation, invasion of privacy, harassment, or racketeering? It seems like Randazza might have a plausible claim for any of these things or more, all based on the content of Cox's speech. While I am a free speech advocate, I think all these kinds of claims are valid. Why did he think he could assert only a domain name cybersquatting claim against her?
Jan. 26 2014 11:22 AM"
Source
http://www.onthemedia.org/story/combating-bad-speech-more-speech/
Well, A.C. Senray, you see, Marc Randazza LIED and has NO CASE for Extortion, so he wants the Civil Courts to take his word and simply RULE that Cox is an Extortionist, based on no evidence because HE SAYS SO.
More on Bob Garfield's Interview of Marc Randazza
More on What Drives Riddler Randazza and his Over the Top, "doth protest too much" RANT and hate campaign against Blogger Crystal Cox.
#3 Consumer Comment
Crystal Cox on Marc Randazza's Ninth Circuit Rant and What Drives Marc Randazza.
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Sunday, February 09, 2014
A Bit on Marc Randazza’s Ninth Circuit Rant
Randazza Legal Group attorney Marc Randazza continues to Cry Extortion Allegations against his former client Crystal Cox, in improper venues.
Marc Randazza has filed an Amicus Brief lying to the courts once again about Crystal Cox. He abuses his power as an attorney to bully, harass, defame and distort litigants he targets. The purpose seems to be to steal domain names, suppress speech, force settlements, silence and intimidate whistleblowers, scare people into doing what he says, and force pay for his law firm even when they act as if they are Pro Bono
Marc Randazza claims over and over that Crystal Cox has had due process and adjudication for extortion. Yet Crystal Cox has never had any kind of due process for extortion allegations. Crystal Cox has her former attorney Marc Randazza of Marc Randazza legal group state over and over that “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST”. And because of his power and influence over big media and the courts, he is believed for some reason. And the rights of those he targets, simply seem to not exist.
Marc Randazza is desperate for Judges to simply state that Cox is an Extortionist, and to not give Cox due process for this alleged crime. See, it is best for Marc Randazza if the Judge just state that Crystal Cox is an Extortionist, then his legal blogger friends, and big media buddies, oh and his WIPO buddy Peter L. Michaelson can use those “statements” not based in facts of a criminal investigation but simply Marc Randazza painting the picture of Extortion, as some sort of “factual evidence” against Cox so that Marc Randazza can continue to bully, harass, attack and defame Cox through is abuse of the court system and his media connections.
See Marc Randazza wants Ninth Circuit Judges job to be to accuse people of crimes in civil rulings, when those litigants have had no criminal charges, and no due process in the criminal justice system.
Marc Randazza continues to claim he was extorted after an eMail I sent him asking if he knew anyone needing marketing. So this was in December of 2011. Why not file criminal charges immediately against Crystal Cox and get those adjudicated, due process charges as a matter of law? See if Randazza would have filed criminal charges, he would then have that investigation to include in his Ninth Circuit Rant. Oh, but the only problem is there is no evidence or proof of “Cox is an Extortionist” other than the rant of Marc Randazza and his big media friends and legal blogger buddies. Oh and the eMail in which Kevin Padrick told Forbes and the New York Times that Cox had used to Extort him, after he got a $2.5 Million Judgement. The truth, of course being, that Cox’s email was taken out of context, was one of 5 emails and was a settlement offer between attorneys, as Cox was Pro Se, and trying to stop legal action against her. The email had nothing to do with the complaint that was filed BEFORE that time, as the record of LAW, clearly shows. Crystal had been sent a legal threat on December 22th 2010, the Blog Post she was on trial for was posted Dec. 25th 2010 and she was sued January 14th 2011. The email “they” claim to be extortion was a reply eMail in response to a legat threat and a 10 million dollar lawsuit filed.
David Aman, Tonkon Torp Lawyer took one email out of context and gave it to the Seattle Weekly, claiming extortion. Kevin Padrick gave it to David Carr of the New York Times and Kashmir Hill of Forbes and I was not on trial for extortion. It had no material fact in any way, so how can Marc Randazza think it is ok, as a matter of law, for there to be a Ninth Circuit Ruling on Cox being an Extortionist, or posting about corruption to seek a pay off, when that is not what this case is about.
If Lawyer Marc Randazza feels Cox is a Criminal and his buddies Judge Gloria Navarro, and attorney Peter L. Michaelson, WIPO panelist feel Crystal Cox is a criminal then do they not have a duty to report me to the property authorities, and protect the public at large? Or is it simply a matter of law and constitutional rights to just state Cox is an Extortionist in a Judicial Ruling? And to wave the proof as the Plaintiff words in the case, words to WIPO and his words to big media, all painted out to slander, defame and paint his target, the defendant in false light.
In Randazza v. Cox, District of Nevada Marc Randazza
sued Crystal Cox and he won in the first month.
I say he won because he got my Domain names, he shut down my sites, he got what he calls a gag order, which is unclear if that is what it is. All this with an illegal, unconstitutional TRO that completely sidestepped all my due process rights. So why now 15 months later is he still using this open case to attack, defame and violate the personal and professional rights of blogger Crystal Cox, and other litigants like me in which he bullies and sues to get what he wants or silence?
Clearly Crystal Cox has no money, so why keep up with the attack? Well to suppress the truth about Marc Randazza and his connections to those involved in pedophilia, human trafficking, porn industry prostitution, the fight to NOT ban condoms and move porn to vegas and all that Crystal Cox is posting to expose his friends and clients, and him, mostly now via the Monica Foster, porn industry whistleblower blogs.
Randazza v. Cox in Nevada is a blatant attack on Crystal Cox to suppress her speech. And attacks iViewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein, one of those who has experienced over a decade of massive justice of which I report on.
All Randazza had to do was lie to a court, submit motions stating his version of facts, add in blog posts of his friends that the court calls “legal commentary”, such as Jordan Rushie, news articles by his friend Kashmir Hill of Forbes, blog posts by his forensics files friend Tracy Coenen, and his flat out lies to NPR and other news outlets.
And his target, those he bullies and sues, well they get no rights, no counter claim, no due process and simply get convicted of extortion by way of an over reaching, unconstitutional Judicial TRO Ruling accusing Cox of criminal activity of which was not a material factor or cause of action of the case, or any case Cox has ever been in.
Marc Randazza controls the Nevada Courts, has WIPO connections, has big media connections and has a gang of lawyers who post what ever he wants. This creates the public view of whatever he wants the perception to be of whatever case he is working on and forces litigants to settle, to silence or to do whatever action Marc Randazza wishes them to do.
Marc Randazza CIVIL Complaint Against Crystal Cox/ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.1.0.pdf
Really it’s a SLAPP suit to silence my speech, a defamation lawsuit and a platform to accuse me of extortion, but he sues under copyright issues and alleged conspiracy, though he had no copyright. More on all that later.
Keep in mind, Eliot Bernstein never was served in this action and Crystal Cox accepted service Electronically to fight back. See Marc Randazza files legal actions, doesn’t serve the litigants then uses that to harass and attack them. So I joined the case thinking it was a court of law, in order to fight back for justice for all. What was I thinking, the law did not apply to me, that is clear. Marc Randazza control’s the Nevada Courts and abuses his power as an attorney and connections to do what he wants to who he wants.
Attorney Marc Randazza used an Unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction, TRO to shut down blogs, steal intellectual property and alter the search engines. Though, he himself is quoted in other case as to this kind of action being unconstitutional.
Excerpt from Crystal Cox’s Objection the TRO, quoting a past case of Marc Randazza
“The Preliminary Injunction in this Case against Defendant Crystal Cox is Unconstitutional.
If a court issues an injunction prior to adjudicating the First Amendment Protection of the speech at issue, the injunction cannot pass constitutional muster. This court denied Defendant Crystal Cox Due Process in expressly skipping the essential step of adjudicating the First Amendment protections to the speech at issue.
This court denied Defendant Crystal Cox Due Process in failing to make any findings of fact or ruling of law, much less review of the blog articles and the First Amendment. Plaintiff Marc Randazza is a Public Figure. (New York Times Vs. Sullivan)
A Judicial Order that prevents free speech from occurring is unlawful. (Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law; Principles and Policies 918 (2002) (“The Clearest definition of prior restraint is.. a judicial order that prevents speech from occurring:).
Prior Restraints are “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights.” Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stewart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). There is a “deep-seated American hostility to prior restraint” Id at 589 (Brennan, J. concurring).
Injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened damage is heavily disfavored because it interferes with the First Amendment and amounts to censorship prior to a judicial determination of the lawlessness of speech. See Moore v. City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, 41So. 2d 865, 872 (Fla. 1949). “The special vice of prior restraint,” the Supreme Court held,“is that communication will be suppressed... before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment”. Pittsburgh Press Co v. Pittsburg Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 390 (1973). Also se Fort Wayn Books Inc. v Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 66 (1989); M.I.C., Ltd v Bedford Township, 463 U.S. 1341, 11343 (1983.)
In this case, the Nevada Court has skipped the step of adjudicating the First Amendment protection relevant to the speech at issue. Prior Restraints are Unconstitutional. Also see Post-Newswek Stations Orlando, Inc. v. Guetzlo.
“RKA sought extraordinary relief in the form of prior restraint to enjoin .. . This relief is not recognized in this State, nor anywhere else in the Country. In addition to ignoring the First Amendment Rights and almost a century’s worth of common law, the .. court ignored virtually all procedural requirements for the issue of a preliminary injunction.” Page 5 Paragraph ii of Opening Brief Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Irina Chevaldina Appellant vs. R.K./FI Management Inc.;et.al., Appellees. Attorney for Appellant Marc J. Randazza Florida Bar No. 325566, Randazza Legal Group Miami Florida. This case is now hereby referenced here in, in it’s entirety, as seen in Exhibit J.”
Source of Above Quote
(Stay tuned for lot’s more on the Hypocrisy of Porn Attorney Marc Randazza.)
Crystal Cox did not even get First Amendment Adjudication for the massive blogs, domains and websites Marc Randazza seized through an illegal, unconstitutional, seriously over reaching TRO temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction
Here is the Unconstitutional, Extortion Accusing TRO Motion against Crystal Cox and iViewit Technology Inventor, Victim of Corruption Cox was reporting on, Eliot Bernstein
Crystal Cox Response to TRO Motion
TRO Motion Supplement, accusations of Criminal Activity of Cox and Bernstein
Defendant Crystal Cox Response to TRO Motion Supplement
Randazza TRO Motion Reply to Response
Another Randazza TRO Response, with false accusations
A letter from Ronald Green, Randazza Legal Group. A pending hearing he deems as a ruling and sends to Godaddy and WOW they give the names to Marc Randazza, just like that.
Defamatory, Over Reaching, Unconstitutional Order Ruling Against Cox and throwing in some accusations, and “pot shots” to further harass, defame and discredit Cox.
So who is it that Does not want the Attorney General involved and an Investigation by Authorities?? Well Crystal Cox wants an investigation, Marc Randazza does NOT.
Crystal Cox wanted a Criminal Investigation and asked the Court to Investigate Marc Randazza and his abuse of Crystal Cox and her informants. Cox also asked to enjoin the attorney general. Crystal Cox wanted due process of law for the extortion allegations, what she got was judges and attorneys ganging up on her and flat out stating Crystal Cox’s guilt without Cox being on trial for or under investigation for Extortion and thereby given due process in the criminal justice system.
Motion Requesting to Investigate Marc Randazza
Marc Randazza is afraid of an investigation and “protests”, all the while accusing Cox of extorting him, which is a crime, so why object to enjoining the attorney general and an investigation?
Investigation DENIED by Judge Gloria Navarro
Motion to Enjoin Attorney General
Order Denying to bring in the Attorney General, gee and isn’t Cox involved in Felony Extortion and yet Marc Randazza and Judge Gloria Navarro, though their ethical duty, don’t want authorities or criminal investigations?? Hmmmm
Hey Let’s Take Away her right to file electronically so we can file shit and she has to pay to print, and mail it, though ya she is penniless and we are wealthy asshole attorneys.
Motion to Declare Cox a Vexatious Litigant
Vexatious Litigant Supplement
So funny, Randazza did not accept service in cases where I sued him, yet acknowledges them and thereby has been served via electronic serving. And Randazza worked with all the Judges, yet did not enter the case, as they all attacked Cox, and with only Marc’s word to go on.
Oh and ya the Florida Judge said Cox’s claims were, “baseless in light of the fact that the Complaint is comprised of conclusory allegations that are oft-times fantastic or delusional.” In which you see in the above documents filed by Randazza.
Here is the Florida Case (ethicscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/02/crystal-l-cox-v-randazza-legal-group.html
And the Overreaching Judges accusations of me, “Pot Shots” slipped into a dismissal. Gee I wonder where the Judges overreaching Opinion of Crystal Cox came from?
ALSO take NOTE; it is a FACT that porn prostitution rings exist, porn agents are actually pimps. And the porn industry is involved in human trafficking, gang stalking attorneys who silence whistel blowers whatever it takes and all manner of organized crime.
Here is Crystal Cox’s Objection to being Declared a Vexatious Litigant
Oh Snap, sorry buddy Marc Randazza, you can’t declare Cox a Vexatious Litigant when you sued her. But tell ya what ol’ friend, I will accuse her of some crimes in my ruling for ya, hope that makes you feel better. So the “Judge” SLAMS Crystal Cox as she rules in her favor.
Crystal Cox, through her attorney Eugene Volokh Files a Motion to Rehear
So Before we get much, MUCH further down the rabbit hole of what Drives Porn Attorney Marc Randazza, let’s take a look at his most recent attack against Crystal Cox, his Ninth Circuit Rant, kicking and stomping, oh and flat out lying in order to get the Ninth Circuit to declare Crystal Cox a Criminal without actual filing criminal charges and allowing due process.
A Ninth Circuit Ruling makes Bloggers Equal to Traditional Journalists in Big Media and of the Institutional Press. Yet at the same time uses the ruling to issue an Opinion, not of material fact or cause of action in the case, that Crystal Cox reports on corruption matters simply so she can ask for a retraction for a pay off. This is not a fact, this has never happened and is not lawful to simply throw into a Ninth Circuit Ruling.
Is there a Conviction of Record for the Crime of Extortion of Crystal Cox or Not? If not, and so many Judges and attorneys believe Cox is committing the Felony of extortion, then why not protect the public at large and file a criminal complaint, an FBI complaint, a Department of Justice or Attorney General Complaint?
How is it the proper venue to simply state, with actual malice, over and over Cox is an Extortionist in civil cases, legal blogs and big media? And claim this is evidence to include in a Judicial Ruling as to Cox’s alleged criminal behavior, though Cox was never given due process in the criminal justice system?
Yes this very ruling gives blogs and media the right to to rant, and have an opinion and even accuse Cox of crimes so long as they truly do NOT have “actual malice”. However it is not lawful or constitutional nor is it judicially ethically to accuse people of crimes the judges “think” may have “apparently” happened, that are not even part of the case nor issues of the appeal, and thereby discredit the litigant and prejudice the litigant in her lower court trial before she even gets there, and is pro se in the lower court.
Judges should not, as a matter of law, include willy nilly, random pot shots at litigants they may not like simply to discredit them, or seemingly to make the blogger look like a criminal so that the bloggers reports on corruption are not believed by the masses, or other court processes.
Can they prove extortion? If so, then why use a ninth circuit amicus for the venue instead of a criminal court of law? Why am I singled out to not be allowed due process for this alleged crime? Why do I not get a criminal attorney appointed? I have no money and live in church housing. I have a right to a criminal trial and a criminal attorney, in a proper court venue.
And not simply a random, drive by per say throwing it into a ruling that has nothing to do with extortion, which is a Felony, a “Crime”. And not a civil matter at issue in this Ninth Circuit Ruling.
I, Crystal Cox, have worked hard for this precedent, and gave all I knew to be my life for it. I was spiritually led to do this, to make this stand. And if I have a criminal investigation so be it, I have faith.However, this Ruling is the most important ruling for Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers of our times and I don’t want this to happen to them when they are breaking the news, exposing corruption, or reporting on the news in their area or expertise.
The Wall of Corruption NEEDS to come down and Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers are the ones that are doing it.This is NOT about me personally, I am fine with an extortion investigation. I am fine with hating me, thinking I am a criminal. Go for It. I do not need approval, nor to be liked. You know your Truth and I know mine.
I simply want it in the proper court, and not thrown in to this ruling as if it is a material fact of this case, because it is not. I don’t want overreaching judges and rogue aggressive attorneys to silence those Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers, to “chill their speech” within the very ruling that professes to gives them equality in the courts. Go ahead and attack me personally, however this is not about me. This is about all who this divinely important ruling affects.
I say Let Freedom Reign.
I want Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers to be Free in their reporting, to be protected TRULY equal to that of the New York Times, Forbes, USA Today, and Rogue Attorneys and their “legal commentary”, used as fact and evidence against litigants.
The truth is the truth and these Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers are the ones really exposing it. Not Lawyers, Not Judges, Not Big Media, Not Traditional Reporters.
I feel it is my duty to protect them ALL to the best of my ability. Which is a HUGE reason I chose Eugene Volokh over Marc Randazza to litigate this delicate and vastly important issue of our times.
I want this ruling to truly level the playing field in what is the “news”, that is protected within our justice system and invite ALL in to tell their story, to report the real news by the People for the People without Fear of massive judgements, discrimination in courts or retaliation from Judges throwing in “pot shot” attacks and aggressive attorneys painting the picture that the reporter is not credible and is a criminal not to be trusted.
Which, by the way, even if you are reading the news from a “criminal” that does not mean the news is not true nor does it mean it should not have equal protection under the law. It is a separate issue and matter of law and constitutional rights.
As an anti-corruption blogger who has faced extreme prejudice and retaliation within the legal system itself, I know the unique set of free speech, extreme retaliation and whistleblower rights issues that go with it. This has become a big part of my divinely led, life mission, and I take it very seriously and pray about it several times a day, for clear direction.
I understand the fear those like me have when they want to speak out on the corruption or issues they know about. I want to give them a voice. I chose to give voice to victims of corruption. It was not happening to me, I simply felt divinely led to give voice to who I could, to do something to make this world a better place for all.
I don’t simply want them to have the right to rant and be protected under the First Amendment, I want ALL Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers to be treated equally in the courts and that includes protection from retaliation within that court system on all levels.
It is a Fact, as a matter of law, that No Judge, no court of law has convicted me of the crime of extortion. Yes they have engaged in slander, hearsay and painting me out to be an extortionist, however I have no conviction of extortion. Therefore they are slandering and defaming me in judicial rulings, with no due process or adjudication for the crime of extortion.
Was I Convicted of Extortion or Was I Not when these statements were made? It is a matter of Fact and law, either I was convicted of extortion when these Judges, WIPO and various other outlets accused me of extortion or not.
Is there a Conviction of Record for the Crime of Extortion of Crystal Cox or Not? If not then it does not belong as Fact in a Ninth Circuit Court Ruling.
Does anyone have a conviction of Crystal Cox for criminal acts or not, when they made these statements in judicial rulings, in WIPO decisions, in Real Estate Boards? No they did not. So how is this something that is used in a court of law as evidence by judges to make rulings that accuse Cox of illegal, criminal behavior without giving Cox due process of law, and constitutional rights.
No Judge has ruled that I, Crystal Cox, was guilty of extortion, they simply allege that as part of their copyright case, domain name cases, free speech suppression cases and denials of my rights to counter sue and to shut down my blogs exposing corruption in the porn industry, connected to Marc Randazza.
Just because Judges, Lawyers, and their media connections state something over and over, that does not make it fact that a ninth circuit judicial ruling or any judicial ruling should use as material fact, evidence against anyone, for any reason.
If it is not a FACT that Crystal Cox was convicted in a court of law of extortion then a Judge should not randomly throw it into a ruling as evidence against Cox, for any reason.
FACT: Crystal Cox has never been convicted of the crime of extortion. Cox has never had a criminal complaint filed for the crime of extortion. Cox has never had a criminal attorney. Cox has never had a criminal investigation. And there is a clear pattern and history among judges, attorneys and controlled media to paint Cox out to be a criminal in order to discredit my stories of corruption. Yet there is no Criminal Conviction of Record as a matter of law.
Marc Randazza twisted his legal ease, used his own slanderous and defamatory, false statements in lower court motions as some evidence that Cox is a criminal, and wants the Ninth Circuit to be the judge and jury on that issue. Yet Crystal Cox has never been convicted of a crime, in a court of law that should be what Ninth Circuit Appellate Judges go by.
Marc Randazza used his lower court rulings, and false statements in motions and to WIPO as some sort of proof of “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST” in a Ninth Circuit Amicus Rant. There is something very wrong with this and Marc Randazza certainly “doth protest too much”. And in the WRONG legal venue.
I am not asking to be believed nor am I trying to hide that the world “believes” I am guilty of the crime of Extortion because Judges and Attorneys have painted that picture. They have also painted that picture about one of the victims of corruption I report on Eliot Bernstein, inventor of the iViewit Technology and a victim of the world’s largest technology theft.
I am asking for due process, constitutional rights, a criminal attorney and a criminal court process. As what is being done to me, can and is done to ALL anti-corruption bloggers. It is not right, lawful or constitutional for over reaching judges and attorneys to simply state something they want “believed” by the masses and then it is a matter of fact and law just because they are judges and attorneys, and it is in a Judicial, higher court ruling.
If these Judges and Lawyers thought me guilty of a criminal act, a felony then why simply state it in a judicial opinion, in news outlets, on legal blogs and why not file a criminal complaint? And why say “apparently”, either it is fact or not. The word “apparently” is “unnecessary”.
In the Nevada Case I asked for an attorney over and over, I even filed a motion to adjoin the Attorney General, I want this all investigated, they do not want to be investigated. So they use the courts, law blogs, and big media to convict me, instead of a criminal court. This violates my due process rights and this violates my constitutional rights, and I am not the only one this happens to. It is my moral duty to protect all that this happens to and fight back to protect them, to the best of my ability.
I FIRED Marc Randazza as my attorney. Though his buddies seem to believe he “chose” not to represent me, the record clearly shows otherwise.
I chose Eugene Volokh because I wanted Eugene Volokh to be the face of this massively important social issue of our times and not a porn attorney who constantly berated me, tried to control me, tried to force me not to appeal, bullied me, harasses me, acts as a male chauvinist a****** and has put me under constant duress and hardship in every way for over 2 years and counting. That was NOT the face for this DIVINE Ruling that brings relief to the masses, in opening the doors for the “real news” to freely poor out and have equal protection under the law.
It should be clear by now that there is a conspiracy to convict me of a crime without an actual trial for that crime in order to discredit me and who I am reporting on. Marc Randazza even sued Eliot Bernstein in the Randazza v. Cox, Bernstein Nevada case he touts as his proof somehow that “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST”. And attorney Marc Randazza named Eliot Bernstein in the WIPO case to discredit the World’s largest Technology Patent theft story of Eliot and iViewit, I have reported on for years, in which affects Marc Randazza’s client in the porn industry.
I Made a Stand Against Over Reaching Judges, and Attorneys who abuse their power and the court process. This STANDis for the Rights of ALL Citizen Journalists, Anti-Bloggers,and Whistleblowers.
I, Crystal Cox, through my constitutional rights attorney Eugene Volokh, am asking for a Redaction of the allegation of criminal activity, that is not a material fact in this civil court ruling.
If the Ninth Circuit Judges grant this then it says yes, it is not acceptable for judges at any court level to simply ad lib, or take pot shots at litigants based on opinions and prejudices that are not a “matter of law” nor based in adjudicated facts for that exact issue or accusation.
If the Ninth Circuit Judges do not grant this redaction, then we know that the Ninth Circuit says, as a matter of law, constitutional rights and legal precedent that it is ethical, LAW and FACT to state someone engaging in criminal activity, in a judicial ruling that is not about that that activity.
They would be saying it is ok for the New York Times or some free speech suppressing attorney to simply write an article, lie to WIPO and sue litigants and then use all of their own story they created, as factual evidence for a Judicial Ruling to essentially convict you in a ruling that will be your legacy and used against you ever day of your life and used against others reporting on corruption as a way to discredit them, harass them and retaliate against them.
They would be saying it is ok for the New York Times or some free speech suppressing attorney to simply write an article, lie to WIPO and sue litigants and then use all of their own story they created, as factual evidence for a Judicial Ruling to essentially convict you in a ruling that will be your legacy and used against you ever day of your life and used against others reporting on corruption as a way to discredit them, harass them and retaliate against them.
We will watch and See what Rule of Law applies to Blogger Crystal Cox, and ALL Citizen Journalists, Anti-Bloggers, and Whistleblowers,who do what she does, EXPOSE Corruption.
Here is Eugene Volokh’s Motion to Rehear, Redact A Few Quotes from this Motion; “Appellant Crystal Cox does not ask this Court to modify the substance ofits opinion. She does, however, respectfully request that the Court amend its opinion to withhold the sentence that now says, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seek-ing payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech, N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. “A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” could be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court. But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit ofcross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process. The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a factfinder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Moreover, while the New York Times column does discuss Cox’s offering her consulting services to appellees in this case, it does not make any suchallegations about other cases. There thus seems to be no “history” of “seeking payoffs” claimed in the article. The “history” that the column is positing appears to be only a history of Cox’s “making similar allegations.”
Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, some media outlets have not only repeated this sentence, but even omitted the term “apparently” in doing so.
The widely reprinted Reuters wire service, for instance, wrote, According to the court’s opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities “and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”
Dan Levine, Blogger Gets Same Speech Protections as Traditional Press:U.S. Court, Reuters, Jan. 17, 2014”
“ Of course, some such media omissions of qualifiers (such as “apparently”) are inevitable. Still, they highlight the fact that, when a statement is made in a Court of Appeals opinion—with the authority such opinions possess—journalists might perceive the statement as a factual finding, and not just a report of what a Judicial opinions are perceived as extraordinarily reliable sources of information.
This reliability stems from the assumption that statements in the opinion, especially statements that allege misconduct, generally rest on adjudicated facts.
Because of this, Cox respectfully requests that this particular allegation, which relies solely on a claim made in a newspaper column, be redacted from the opinion. “
Marc Randazza Files Ninth Circuit Rant to Side Step Criminal Justice Process
Marc Randazza in a “though does protest too much” Rant, files an Amicus Brief to try and protect all of his motions, free speech suppression, WIPO fraud, judicial rulings, harassment and more that rely ONLY on his ability to state that Cox is an Extortionist over and over in Judicial Motions and convince judges to simply convict Cox because he says so. And use his WIPO connections to get WIPO to use a world publication to accuse Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein of the crime of Extortion simply because First Amendment Bar, Porn Attorney Marc Randazza says so.
Here is Randazza’s Ridiculous Amicus citing improper reasons that the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in a Civil Case should somehow convict Crystal Cox of criminal activity simply to justify Marc Randazza’s lies and fraud on the court in Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein in Nevada and his fraud and lies to WIPO about Crystal Cox and iViewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein.
Amicus in Support of Neither Party aKa, Hey Judges this is about me, for me and so I command you to do as I say to benefit me.
A Few Quotes, Blathers and Flat out Lies
Crystal Cox’s yammer and rebuttal is in BLUE.
“Randazza’s brief will assist this Court in deciding Cox’s pending petition forrehearing, requesting that this Court issue a new opinion removing the citation to David Carr’s New York Times article titled “When Truth Survives Free Speech,” accusing Cox of seeking payment for retraction. Regardless of the procedural basis the Court uses for discussing Cox’s extortionate practices, the Court’s observations are correct and should stand, albeit augmented with stronger sources. “
Randazza brief is not here to “assist this Court”. Randazza is here to protect his unethical and unconstitutional actions and judicial accusations tormenting, defaming, harassing and flat lying about Crystal Cox for over 2 years.
Randazza says, “Regardless of the procedural basis the Court uses for discussing Cox’s extortionate practices”. WOW, so he is basically saying, hey I can help, as a matter of LAW, but the procedural base is of no matter to me, I just want to make sure you stick it to her, and slander her in your ruling, oh and violate her rights of due process so you don’t make me look bad for doing this to her in every venue possible for over 2 years.
Randazzle says, “the Court’s observations are correct and should stand, albeit augmented with stronger sources.” You see he seems to think it is “this Court’s” job to make an “observation” and a ruling as to whether Cox has posted allegations and than sought pay off to remove those allegations instead of adjudicated facts on those slanderous and defamatory statements.
Oh and wait, Randazza wants “stronger sources” quoted for this blatant, unconstitutional attack on Crystal Cox. And just what are those STRONG sources that convict Cox of posting on fraud and corruption and then seeking a pay off for a retraction, well of course HIM. His words and lies to WIPO, his words and abuse of the court process in Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein, his unconstitutional preliminary injunction and his betrayal of his ex-client Crystal Cox who told him about Martin Cain, the man who filed a real estate complaint against Cox based in perjury, fraud and lies.
I have put emails into the record in the Nevada case that show that Marc Randazza contacted Martin Cain and they have “conspired” against me. This was before the “ The Proposed Disciplinary Treatment of the License of Crystal L. Cox Case” that Marc randazza seems to cite as some legal reason to accuse me of Extortion in the Ninth Circuit when that case was NOT about extortion, as are the words right from the Attorney General involved in the case, which I have in an email.
Yep, Marc Randazza sure seems to be guilty of malpractice to me, violating my rights and attorney client privilege, but I can’t seem to get anyone to go up against him in a lawsuit and “his Judges” simply dismiss mine and accuse me of criminal acts in the process.
More on the Randazzle Rant begging for an Appellate Court to CONVICT Cox of the Crime of Extortion because he says so;“As set forth in Randazza’s concurrently submitted brief, Cox is an extortionist, and has been identified as such in public records that may be judicially noticed by this Court under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 – including the United States District Courts for the District of Nevada, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the State of Montana Board of Realty Regulation. All of these authorities have found Cox’s conduct to be extortionate, and all may be relied on by this Court even if the New York Times’ accurate discussion of her conduct cannot.”
Oh SNAP, there you have it, Randazzle says, “Cox is an extortionist” so there it is, Cox must be then right? NOT.
None of the cases Marc Randazza cites adjudicated the crime of extortion nor gave me due process on the crime of extortion, PERIOD.
Randazzle Says: “This matter is of critical importance because Appellees are far from Cox’s only victim. As set out in Randazza’s brief, Cox has engaged in a nationwide pattern of cyber-extortion.
Cox, who has draped herself in the First Amendment in this appeal, now seeks to suppress valuable information about herself from the public record, to the detriment of her victims who may seek redress from the Courts.
Within days of winning an ostensibly important First Amendment victory from this Court, she has revealed her true censorious nature and sought to have critical, factually verifiable information about her removed from the public record.
The rich irony of this development appears to be lost on Cox and her censorious request.”
Oh Cox get the “richness” of the Irony, indeed.
I am not saying ya’ll don’t have the right to call me a criminal on your blogs, oh unless you know I am not guilty of extortion and knowingly post false information with “actual malice”, then of course that may be a different story.
See folks this matter is of “critical importance” because of all of Cox’s victims. Oh I mean all those Cox reports on that are engaged in unethical and unconstitutional and even possibly illegal acts that want to shut her up, need this ruling to paint Cox out as the bad guy to protect corruption. Oh and it’s so important and accurate that these alleged victims of my extortion scheme did not seek authorities to prosecute me but instead want a Ninth Circuit Appeal case, not related to a criminal case for extortion that does not exist, to simply convict me of a crime and call it good.
There is NO nation wide extortion pattern.
There is a nation full of those creating victims, lots of corrupt and over reaching judges, lots of rogue attorneys and others to report stories on. But I forget those are “victims” according to market Randazza and not simply subjects, people, companies that I am reporting on as Marc Randazza says on his blog Cox is not a Journalist. Oh and here in this Amicus Dick Swinging Contest we see Marc Randazza yell from the rooftops, “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST”.
I do not seek to suppress valuable information. If it is so valuable dumbass, and you are protecting the public from my alleged cyber extortion schemes, then why did you not file a criminal complaint instead of years later whine to an appellate court over a defamation case?
No victims will “seek redress” as there are NO victims, there are only those I am reporting on. And if these alleged victims seek redress because I allegedly extorted them then they would not use a Ninth Circuit Civil Court ruling to do so. They would go through the proper channels in the criminal justice system.
Marc Randazza is one such attorney that I report on, as I allege he is connected to organized crime in porn, human trafficking and supports pedophiles. I get tips constantly regarding all this and they are people I report on, Marc included. They are not victims and I have never ever posted anything and then sought a payment to retract what I posted, that is flat out malicious and false, PERIOD.
Yes I WON a huge victory, and no thanks to Marc Randazza who told me not to appeal, tried to force me to stop my appeal, conspired with the opposition to auction off my right to appeal and constantly attacks, berates, sues, gang stalks, bullies, and threatens me.
Randazza Says; “ she has revealed her true censorious nature and sought to have critical, factually verifiable information about her removed from the public record.” This is flat out bulls***. I don’t give a shit what he says about me, rant from the rooftops. However to put this in a judicial ruling and call it “factually verifiable information”, now this is simply unlawful, unethical, slanderous, defamatory as a matter of law and certainly unconstitutional. IT IS NOT Factual nor Verifiable.
There are no victims and if some feel they are victims of me being an extortionist than a Ninth Circuit Civil Court is not going to help them, try the FBI, the Department of Justice instead.
Oh Ya here we have a victim crying out now, let’s take a look;
“Randazza is yet one more of Cox’s victims, and has been subject to Cox’s extortive scheme. As set forth in the brief accompanying this motion, Randazza and other members of his family are also engaged in litigation against Cox in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Randazza v. Cox, Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL. Randazza’s action was brought to bring an end to the extortionate conduct Cox has levied against him, and the harassment Cox has engaged in against his wife and even his toddler daughter.”
WOW, Randazza is a victim of Crystal Cox’s extortion scheme, and this happened 2 years ago and he did not file criminal charges and he is an attorney? Hmm.. oh and Cox attacked his toddler daughter and he did not contact the police, the FBI?
Cox harassed his wife and toddler? Really? Or did Cox call his wife a slut, as Randazza defended Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a slut. oh and the attack on a toddler is a flat out, no proof lie, in order to get NPR, Forbes and other sympathy for poor porn, pedophile supporting attorney THUG Marc Randazza.
Oh and WOW, breaking NEWS, Randazza says,“Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL. Randazza’s action was brought to bring an end to the extortionate conduct Cox has levied against him”Geez and he filed a civil case to shut down massive online speech of Crystal Cox that spoke critical of him. Wow, the whole Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein is now about extortion, really? Does that make sense? Isn’t extortion a felony, why not go through the criminal process? Oh, I know because Marc Randazza owns the Civil Process, or thinks he does.
See Marc Randazza threatened me, attacked me, tried to force me not to appeal, tormented me, was massively jealous I chose Eugen Volokh over him and pissed off that I bought MarcRandazza.com and did not do waht he told me to do when he told me to do it. SO he launched a 2 years and counting cyber attack on me, lawsuit attack, WIPO attack, and his buddies have massive hate blogs and have emailed me and texted me threats Yet he sued me to stop my harassment campaign, guess he misses the “richness” of the irony on that one.
I guess all I can say to all that is Liar Liar Pants on Fire. I will share with you and Poke some fun at Randazzle’s perjured declaration of non-fact, coming soon.
Full Defamatory, Ridiculous Document Quoted Above
Eugene Volokh’s Opposition, Response to Marc Randazza’s leave to file his Amicus Rant
Looks to Me that Marc Randazza gets his ass kicked on that one.Here is Marc’s dribbling Reply to Eugene’s Opposition oops could have used some more case law there dips***.
WOW, what a Document. Sure does seem like a ranting protest to me.A tantrum, to get judges to violate law and infringe on the rights of litigants because Marc Randazza says so.
So funny, in Marc Randazza's Ninth Circuit Rant, he says "doth protest too much". Odd because the case has nothing to do with him and his only motive is to paint Cox out to be a criminal without going through the criminal justice system. Marc Randazza, not involved in the case, files a ranting, accusing, perjured Amicus Brief, another words kicking and screaming and protesting. Then when his brief gets a response filing, well he calls that "doth protest too much"
Even though there is no lower court record of the crime of Extortion. Marc Wants it LAW. Marc wants Cox is an Extortionist in a Ninth Circuit Ruling simply because he says so and to cover up his own unethical, unconstitutional, seriously over reaching behavior. And then says “doth protest too much”, about those who have been in the case for 2 years on appeal. Hmmm.. who is that is really protesting too much and therefore drawing attention to his own behavior and abuse of the court process.
Here is an online Statement from Crystal Cox, in Support of the Ninth Circuit Motion to Rehear and Redact the judicial panels over reaching statements aKa “pot shots” at Defendant Crystal Cox.
Here is Excerpts from Marc Randazza’s Reply to
Eugene Volokhs Opposition, Response.
Eugene Volokhs Opposition, Response.
“Randazza does not even seek for the Court to take notice of the WIPO panel’s or Montana Board of Realty Regulation’s ultimate decisions – just that they made factual findings.”
They were not factual findings on the allegation of Extortion, these cases were not a cause of action or complaint about extortion. They were agency law for real estate, and WIPO was a domain dispute, a trademark dispute and Nevada was about the Lanham Act and copyright issues. There are no factual findings to the allegation of extortion, whatsoever.
“ She just does not want it done. Cox’s only possible motivation to hide this information from the Court’s view, by relying on legal doctrines inapposite to Randazza’s argument, is to conceal the true nature of her actions from her victims and the public at large.”
So Marc Randazza wants you to believe that the Ninth Circuit is the place to protect the public at large from felons engaged in the criminal act of extortion? WOW.
Cox does not want it hidden, Cox wants facts in a Ninth Circuit Judicial Ruling. If the judges have convicted Cox then take out the word apparently and just do it.
See, the facts are, there is no Extortion and there was NEVER a blog post put up by Cox, in her million blog posts over a decade that Cox put up to ask for payment to take down. This simply never happened nor was ever a motive of Crystal Cox, me, EVER.
Is the Ninth Circuit Civil Court of Appeals, the “record” for extortion convictions?
There is no way that “Crystal COX is an EXTORTIONIST” can be hidden there Randazzle, you made sure those false and defamatory statements published to a third party were spread far and wide, over and over for 2 years and counting… oh and you had actual malice as you were involved, and you were my attorney. So ya, you are Liable as a matter of law for the harm you have done to me, but hey, who cares, Marc Randazza rules the courts and has NO LIABILITY to His Clients, no respect for his clients, and certainly no accountability so it’s all good.
“Ultimately, Cox’s goal is to erase this important factual observation from the Court’s Opinion, so that she may attempt to wield this decision as evidence of the Court’s imprimatur upon her extortion scheme. The Court should decline to grant Cox this privilege, as every adjudicative body that has examined her conduct has reached the same conclusion: Cox is an extortionist.”
Ya.. ummm.. NOT.
Cox is asking for due process. Cox tried to get investigations by authorities in the Nevada case and Randazza and his friend the Judge, Judge Gloria Navarro “doth protest way too much”. And so, NOPE, no criminal investigation, but I would like one, welcome one.
I am certainly not trying to hide that the world believes I am an extortionist.I am trying to show how attorneys, judges and controlled media paint out bloggers exposing corruption to be the ones guilty of corruption and no due process is necessary to do so.
There is no “factual” observation, there is an observation based on Marc Randazza’s version of facts in order to torment, harass, silence, intimidate, and suppress the speech of his former client Crystal Cox, who is tattlin’ on his dumb, egotistical, greasy porn scum a**.
Oh and no worries of my “attempt to wield” I will d*** sure be doing that. As I will file Department of Justice Complaints, FBI Complaints, Lawsuits, Bar Complaints and everything I possibly can to PROTECT the public from attorneys such as Marc Randazza and Judges such as Gloria Navarro and Loretta Preska and a whole lot of other Judges. As well as rogue, lawless attorneys such as NOT NEUTRAL WIPO panelist Peter L. Michaelson.
Yep, let the wielding begin.
No matter what this ruling is. I will be up on them thar white horses wielding my WIN and protecting the innocent from Porn SCUM, Evil A******* such as Marc Randazza and overreaching, rogue, above the law bankruptcy Trustees such as Kevin Padrick.
Oh and NO adjudicative body has ever adjudicated the allegation of Extortion nor even looked at who accused me or what evidence they had to do so.
And no conclusion was reached that “Cox is an Extortionist” from a court that had investigated or adjudicated Cox for Extortion.
And no conclusion was reached that “Cox is an Extortionist” from a court that had investigated or adjudicated Cox for Extortion.
Here is a link to Marc Randazza’s Neener Neener to Eugene, then pulls my hair and runs back off to the playground, REPLY.
Just because a rogue, aggressive attorney says over and over that “Cox is an Extortionist” does not make it so. Do Your Homework, Investigate.
So Folks, check your facts, or join the lynch mob, whatever, that is of your free will. But either way, surely you want the Ninth Circuit to Obey the Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, don’t ya?
Crystal Cox's Statement in Support of Motion to Rehear, Redat
Here is Crystal Cox’s statement After Her Win
Here is a bit about the motion to Redact
Click Below for a live Version of the Above and stay tuned for Lot's more on what really Drives Marc Randazza and why he really "doth protest too much".
docs.google.com/document/d/1PJLtqD3SQ_twfQdTClEHNgP-Kt3scT0n6EewWWcNF-Y/edit
#4 Consumer Comment
Marc Randazza Says, The Greatest Threat to Free Speech is Wealthy Plaintiff's using the courts to intimidate ordinary people. That is Exactly what Marc Randazza is constantly doing to Crystal Cox.
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Monday, February 03, 2014
“The greatest threat to free expression in America is no longer the government,” says Marc Randazza, an online-free-speech defense lawyer. “It’s corporations and wealthy plaintiffs using the courts to intimidate ordinary people who just want to speak honestly on the internet.”"
Source
Marc Randazza abuses the power of the courts and his power as an attorney to paint people out to be who every he wants. He uses his power over the courts, in media and other law bloggers to gang stalk, harass and force settlements in lawsuits.
Marc Randazza has used the courts to intimidate, harass, and steal intellectual property from Blogger Crystal Cox, who is simply speaking honestly on the internet.
Marc Randazza is a wealthy Plaintiff who has used his money and power to harass, terrorize, gang stalk, defame and paint out blogger Crystal Cox to be a criminal simply because he does not like her tactics, her online speech. However, we see yet again Hypocritical Marc Randazza speaking just the opposite of the way he has acted in his non-stop attack of penniless blogger Crystal Cox.
Marc Randazza, wealthy Plaintiff flat out lies to the courts and perjures himself in order to win case and silence whistleblowers exposing him and his clients in organized crime, aKa "the Porn Industry".
#5 Consumer Comment
Ken White, Brown White & Newhouse talks about iViewit in his Rebuttal. Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com is attempting to protect those infringing on the iViewit Technology.
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Monday, February 03, 2014
Ken White of Brown White & Newhouse is part of a group of attorneys that use their power in the courts, in media, and on their own legal blogs and network to bully litigants in their cases and each others cases into settlements, into silence, and oftentimes even into suicide.
Lawyers, Judges, and Controlled Media work together to control the outcome of legal cases, to push litigants to settlements, to suppress stories of corruption, and to silence whistleblowers. And they make independent news outlets, bloggers, whistle blowers, and citizen journalist’s lives, assets, friends, family, quality of life, the collateral damages of their agenda. Ken White of Brown White and Newhouse and Marc Randazza are part of these gang stalking attorneys that abuse the court process to bully people into silence and affect the outcome of court cases.
Ken White speaks of iViewit and inventor Eliot Bernstein in this Rebuttal. iViewit is the worlds biggest technology theft . Here is the iViewit RICO, Civil Case in New York, naming Popehat.com in the motion, which is Ken White, Kenneth P. White of
Brown, White and Newhouse seem to be very knowledgeable in Civil RICO cases as per their website, yet Ken White slams Eliot Bernstein and the iViewit story, here, in a rebuttal against me, Crystal Cox? If Ken White can read, and do some verifiable fact checking, it would be easy to see that I am defending those harmed by lawyers, patent attorneys, judges, big media companies, tech companies and more. But then again the Porn industry owes iViewit Billions for using the iViewit Technology and Ken White defends those in the porn industry.
Porn and iViewit Video Technology Theft
Vivid uses iViewit Techology and targets Porn to Children
Liberty Media, client of Jordan Rushie of PA and Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group USES iViewit Technology. Crystal Cox named Liberty Media as part of her RICO / Racketeering lawsuit fighting back against Marc Randazza.
Marc Randazza, Crystal Cox's former attorney, sued Crystal Cox and used the power of WIPO and media connections to sue, silence and paint blogger Crystal Cox out to be an extortionist. Crystal Cox was and is exposing attorneys Marc Randazza, Jordan Rushie, Ken White and more involved in a mass conspiracy to silence Crystal Cox's story on the worlds largest technology theft, iViewit.
Crystal Cox RICO Lawsuit Naming Liberty Media
Randazza Legal Group's Ronald Green use to be with Greenberg Traurig, a named Defendant in the iViewit Case. Greenberg is also counsel to Liberty Media. Ronald Green has lied to the courts about Crystal Cox, used New York Times articles and blogs as court evidence to steal intellectual property, sue and harass Crystal Cox, former Randazza Legal Group client.
A bit more on Greenberg.
iViewit FBI and SEC Complaintiviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf
iViewit Motion to Rehear Naming Popehat.com, Marc Randazza and More.
To Research More on the iViewit Story
Videos on iViewit
Crystal Cox Statement discussing Judges, Attorneys and Media conspiring to Silence her
Here is Kenneth P. White's Bio, so you know who to complain to. Note that the Free Speech Coalition connections don't seem to be displayed.
#6 Consumer Comment
WIPO, Peter L. Michaelson, Marc Randazza, Francis Gurry WIPO and Edward Kwakwa WIPO have knowingly used WIPO's world publication power to defame, harass and attack iViewit inventor Eliot Bernstein
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Sunday, February 02, 2014
Kenneth White Says this in his Rebuttal;
"WIPO agreed, and awarded Marc several domain names that used his name in a confusing and non-satirical manner, and in the process noted that Cox registered the domains fraudulently to commit extortion:
In any event, for purposes of the Policy the Panel finds the Respondent’s intention, as reflected by the record, was never to solely provide, through her websites, speech critical of the Complainant. Rather, her objective in both registering and using the disputed names was apparently to engage in a rather sinister and tenacious scheme to extort money from the Complainant. Specifically, the Respondent first posted negative and false commentary on her websites that was intentionally calculated to injure the Complainant’s on-line reputation and disrupt the Complainant’s business conducted through his law firm. Thereafter, the Respondent used those sites in a manner that apparently optimized their ranking on the Google search engine in order to increase their visibility and prominence on search results yielded through a Google search of the Complainant, thus likely exacerbating the injury caused to the Complainant. Once all this occurred, the Respondent then offered her reputational management services to the Complainant through which, for a considerable fee, she would remediate the Complainant’s on-line reputation by eliminating all the negative and false commentary of her own making and presumably also ceasing her use of the disputed domain names. Basically, for a price, she would undo the injury to the Complainant for which she was responsible for having created in the first place. This egregious conduct clearly constitutes bad faith under the Policy."
WIPO named the same David Carr New York Times article and Marc Randazza's words as some sort of factual evidence the Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein were guilty of Extortion. This is unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional. WIPO's Francis Gurry and Edward Kwakwa were made aware via phone call, emails and legal action. And they have done nothing to correct the defamation and blatant attack in the WIPO Ruling published wordl wide.
WIPO fraudulent acted against Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein and has yet to take responsibility.
WIPO is not Neutral, Not Ethical and creates victims by letting attorneys such as Marc Randazza and his INTA, WIPO panelist friend Peter L. Michaelson use WIPO as their personal judge and jury to widely publish unfounded, non fact checked accusations of extortion.
Crystal Cox Sues WIPO, New Jersey, Peter L. Michaelson
Eliot Bernstein, iViewit also named in WIPO Complaint to harass and Defame him. See here the iViewit, Eliot Bernstein filing to re-open the iViewit Civil Lawsuit, naming iViewit, Marc Randazza, WIPO, Peter Michaelson and more.
WIPO, Peter L. Michaelson, Marc Randazza, Francis Gurry WIPO and Edward Kwakwa WIPO have knowingly used WIPO's world publication power to defame, harass and attack iViewit inventor Eliot Bernstein and the blogger reporting on the iViewit story, Crystal Cox.
#7 Consumer Comment
Tracy Coenan, Marc Randazza, and Ken White of Brown, White and Newhouse CENSOR Crystal Cox
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Sunday, February 02, 2014
A Blog regarding legal action filed by Crystal Cox against Tracy Coenan, Marc Randazza, and Ken White, has been removed from Google.
Blog Removed
Here is an archive of the blog
and
#8 Consumer Comment
Crystal Cox Blogger; Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations by Overreaching Judges. Motion Filed to Reconsider, Redact, Rehear
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Sunday, February 02, 2014
Blogger Crystal Cox, through her attorney Eugene Volokh, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor files a motion requesting the court to withhold allegations of Cox having a history of seeking a payoff in exchange for retraction.
Defendant Blogger Crystal Cox, "respectfully request that the Court amend its
opinion to withhold the sentence that now says,
opinion to withhold the sentence that now says,
"Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seek-
ing payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth
Survives Free Speech, N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. "
A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” could be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court. But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process.
The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Moreover, while the New York Times column does discuss Cox’s offering her consulting services to appellees in this case, it does not make any such allegations about other cases. There thus seems to be no “history” of “seeking payoffs” claimed in the article. The “history” that the column is positing
appears to be only a history of Cox’s “making similar allegations.”
Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, some media outlets have not only repeated this sentence, but even omitted the term “apparently” in doing so.
The widely reprinted Reuters wire service, for instance, wrote,According to the court’s opinion, Cox has a history of making allega-
tions of fraud and other illegal activities “and seeking payoffs in ex-
change for retraction.”
Dan Levine, Blogger Gets Same Speech Protections as Traditional Press:
U.S. Court, Reuters, Jan. 17, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/
17/us-usa-blogger-ruling-idUSBREA0G1HI20140117; see also, e.g., http://
www.nbcnews.com/id/54102454/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_
gadgets/ (NBC News republication of the Reuters article).
Of course, some such media omissions of qualifiers (such as “apparently”) are inevitable.
Still, they highlight the fact that, when a statement is made in a Court of Appeals
opinion—with the authority such opinions possess—journalists might
perceive the statement as a factual finding, and not just a report of what a
newspaper column has alleged.
Judicial opinions are perceived as extraordinarily reliable sources of information.
This reliability stems from the assumption that statements in the opinion, especially
statements that allege misconduct, generally rest on adjudicated facts. Because of this,
Cox respectfully requests that this particular allegation, which relies solely on a claim
made in a newspaper column, be redacted from the opinion."
Source; Ninth Circuit Appellate Case: 12-35238 01/31/2014 ID: 8961401 Docket Entry: 48, Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox, Motion to Rehear.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit
#9 Author of original report
Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations; Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK Against Extortion Allegations in Judicial Ruling
AUTHOR: CrystalCox - ()
SUBMITTED: Sunday, February 02, 2014
Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK, against Federal Appellate Judges Stating;
“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction”
Cox has not been found guilty by a court of law, had a formal investigation nor any kind of due process on extortion allegations. Therefore an esteemed, highly "reliable source" such as a 3 Judges on an Appellate Panel, should not make allegations of speculated crimes of the Defendant, especially quoting a New York Times journalist as the source of said opinion, or allegations.
I have NO ISSUE with those Speaking Critical of Me, that is your Constitutional Right.
I do not care about being personally Criticized,
I care about
Judges obeying the Law and obeying the
Constitution of the United States of Amerca.
It is one thing for a journalist and a blogger to have equal rights in reporting the news, this is important. However when corruption stories are told or "broke" by these outlets, the authorities then need to perform a formal investigation before a judicial ruling makes those same allegations, as a MATTER OF LAW and Legal Precedent.
I Don't Care Who Likes Me and Who Does Not.
I care about our Judges obeying the Law,
and Respecting our Constitutional Rights.
Speak Critical of me If You must, oh well. I need no support from the masses. This is a Spiritual mission for me. And I will not be silent as to this matter. If I am silent then all anti-corruption bloggers are easily silenced by overreaching Judicial Rulings that accuse them of bad or illegal behavior as a matter of law, in a court of law and with no judicial process, due process, in a court of law. And do so, seemingly, to cover up the very corruption in which those anti-corruption bloggers are exposing in the first place.
Crystal Cox via her attorney Eugene Volokh, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor filed a Motion to Rehear / A motion to REDACT the allegations against Cox that are hearsay and rumor maliciously reported by New York Times Journalist David Carr, and all who have carried out this rumor as evidence in articles and a court of law such as Kenneth P. White of Brown, White and Newhouse ( a Free Speech Coalition Attorney) and Marc Randazza in the Lawsuit Randazza v. Cox.
Note that the Free Speech Coalition is the Adult Entertainment Trade Association. And is connected to prositution in porn, human trafficking and has recently been connected to supporting pedophiles. Click Here to Read More on that
randazzanews.com/?p=37 .
Ken White of Brown, White and Newhouse is part of gang stalking attorneyswho harass, defame, torment and threaten those within the porn industry who are exposing organized crime and the attorneys who protect them such as Ken White and Marc Randazza.
randazzanews.com/?p=37 .
Ken White of Brown, White and Newhouse is part of gang stalking attorneyswho harass, defame, torment and threaten those within the porn industry who are exposing organized crime and the attorneys who protect them such as Ken White and Marc Randazza.
More on the Free Speech Coalition and Marc Randazza
Shelley Lubben on Free Speech Coalition and those connected to Marc Randazza and Ken White of Popehat.com
youtube.com/watch?v=MtFC-NtR494&list=UUcAGIt2_ACffHyVlkAaPejQ
youtube.com/watch?v=MtFC-NtR494&list=UUcAGIt2_ACffHyVlkAaPejQ
Lawyers, Judges, and Controlled Media work together to control the outcome of legal cases, to push litigants to settlements, to suppress stories of corruption, and to silence whistleblowers.
And they make independent news outlets, bloggers, whistle blowers, and citizen journalist’s lives, assets, friends, family, quality of life, the collateral damages of their agenda. Ken White of Brown, White and Newhouse and Marc Randazza are part of these gang stalking attorneys that abuse the court process to bully people into silence.
Crystal Cox, through her UCLA Law Professor Attorney filed a motion that makes it clear, it is unacceptable for judges to accuse people of crimes in higher court judicial rulings, when they have not been given due process, as a matter of law and constitutional rights.
Ken White of Popehat.com, Brown White and Newhouse law firm, is an attorney, and should have a hire standard in "fact checking" then, even journalists and bloggers who may not be experts in law. Dig Deep folks and find out the Truth about Ken White.
Ken White of Popehat.com, Brown White and Newhouse law firm, is an attorney, and should have a hire standard in "fact checking" then, even journalists and bloggers who may not be experts in law. Dig Deep folks and find out the Truth about Ken White.
To Read the Motion to Rehear; Click Below
 |
| Eugene Volokh |
A Few Quotes from Eugene Volokh's Motion to Rehear;
"A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” might be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court.
But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the civil justice process. The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Moreover, while the New York Times article does discuss Cox’s offering her consulting services to appellees in this case, it does not make any such allegations about other cases.
There thus seems to be no “history” of seeking money claimed in the article. The “history” that the column is positing appears to be only a history of Cox’s “making similar allegations.”
"A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” might be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court.
But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the civil justice process. The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Moreover, while the New York Times article does discuss Cox’s offering her consulting services to appellees in this case, it does not make any such allegations about other cases.
There thus seems to be no “history” of seeking money claimed in the article. The “history” that the column is positing appears to be only a history of Cox’s “making similar allegations.”
Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, some media outlets have not only repeated this sentence, but even omitted the term “apparently” in doing so.
The widely reprinted Reuters wire service, for instance, wrote, According to the court’s opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities “and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”
Dan Levine, Blogger Gets Same Speech Protections as Traditional Press: U.S. Court, Reuters, Jan. 17, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/us-usa-blogger-ruling-idUSBREA0G1HI20140117; see also, e.g., http://www.nbcnews.com/id/54102454/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/ (NBC News republication of the Reuters article).
Of course, some such media misstatements are inevitable. Still, they highlight the fact that, when a statement is made in a Court of Appeals opinion—with the authority such opinions possess—journalists might perceive the statement as a factual finding, and not just a report of what a newspaper column has alleged.
Judicial opinions are perceived as extraordinarily reliable sources of information.
This reliability stems from the assumption that statements in the opinion, especially statements that allege misconduct, generally rest on adjudicated facts.Because of this, Cox respectfully requests that this particular allegation, which rests solely on a claim made in a newspaper column, be redacted from the opinion."
Link to "Motion to Rehear" Filed by Eugene Volokh drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit?usp=sharing
Crystal L. Cox, Online Statement regarding and in support of the Motion to Rehear, to Clarify or Redact Courts statement, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction” and the surrounding media and corruption.
Click Below
docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit
Extortion was not part of the Lower Court Case, nor "of record". It has NO business in a Ninth Circuit Appellate Ruling when it was not a factor of the case, whatsoever.
Extortion was not part of the Lower Court Case, nor "of record". It has NO business in a Ninth Circuit Appellate Ruling when it was not a factor of the case, whatsoever.
This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road Folks.
Crystal Cox has NEVER alleged criminal activity without documents, interviews, court hearings, court motions, and lot's of documented evidence posted on her blogs and linking to the source of that information.
Yes, I cuss, yes I have my own style. NO I have not accused the innocent of "bad behavior" EVER. And I have never sought a pay off to retract any allegations nor will I ever.
The goal, the mission per say, is to get criminal investigations and to give a voice to the victims of corrupt attorneys, judges, commissioners, corporations and corruption as a whole, that have documents of proof. Not to accuse innocents and ask for money. That is a LIE painted out by those who wish to silence me, and discredit the stories in which I am trying to draw attention to.
If you want to believe your favorite blogger or big media newspaper, go ahead, that is your free will and constitutional right. However, if you really are a journalist, a researcher, and an Investigative Blogger then do your homework. Investigate the allegations I have posted against hundreds over the last 10 years. Investigate the entire Summit Bankruptcy case and make up your own mind. And investigate the extortion allegations, find factual evidence in all of this, DO NOT simply believe Forbes, the New York Times or in this case an overreaching Judicial Ruling that gives Equality to blogger while at the same time using a New York Times article to discredit, slander and accuse the blogger of criminal activiity.
I am asking for a retraction, as a matter of law and constitutional rights of ALL who expose corruption and are often put under extreme prejudice and duress by the very legal system they are claiming is corrupt in some way.
I allege crimes that I truly have researched and truly do believe have been committed. And I do NOT ask for a payoff to retract those allegations that I 100% believe to be true. For over 9 years now, I have studied inside tips,documents, court cases, videos, emails, hearings, and I have not alleged criminal activity that has nothing to back it up, NOT EVER.
Nor have I accused people of crimes with nothing to go on at all. And CERTAINLY I have not give my life to exposing crime in order to seek a measly $2500 a month pay off to extort or blackmail the criminal (bad guy) I am earnestly trying to expose and get justice for their victims. An email during a legal battle, sent in my Pro Se capacity as a settlement offer, is called extortion by the masses and is certainly NOT evidence against me, that is based in any kind of fact.
I have dedicated my life to this. I am penniless, live in Church housing and eat due to the generosity of the Church. I made this stand to fight for the victims of corruption and give power to the anti-corruption bloggers exposing corruption. To me this is a basic human right, a civil right and absolutely necessary in a truly Free society striving for Justice for All.
I have given to much, witnessed so much suffering. And at this point I do not intend to let the lie stand in place of the Truth, to the best of my ability.
These crimes are happening, these victims, these stories are real, and I have not simply been half hazardly alleging or accusing innocent "victims.
Asking for a Ninth Circuit Redaction is based in a Matter of Law and Constitutional Rights plain and simple. I ask this for the rights of all Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blowers, and Anti-Corruption Bloggers out there trying to expose corruption and being shut down by lawyers, judges and the judicial process as a whole.
If the Ninth Circuit Judges DENY this request for true equality as Matter of Law and Constitutional Rights, then they do. However, I have at least asked the question. And we will soon know if it is a Ninth Circuit Ruling / Judicial Opinion that the New York Times is FACT, is documented evidence that can be used against all people as a matter of LAW, with no fact checking by the Ninth Circuit as to the allegations made by a New York Times reporter.
If the Ninth Circuit Appellate court gives the New York Times this kind of power as a Matter of LAW and Constitutional Rights, then what good is this amazing ruling that levels the playing field for all Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blowers, and Anti-Corruption Bloggers, equal to that of the New York Times, Forbes, USA Today, Reuters and other high powered corporate media outlets.
If the Ninth Circuit Judges say its lawful for Federal Judges to accuse people of crimes in a Judicial Ruling, as a Matter of LAW, based on the New York Times saying so, well there you have it, then its LAW.
For More on the Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal
ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/
For More on the Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal
ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/
For mor on Crystal Cox Blogger, the Crystal Cox Case
crystalcoxcase.com/
One of Crystal Cox's Lawsuits naming Ken White of Popehat.com
crystalcoxcase.com/
One of Crystal Cox's Lawsuits naming Ken White of Popehat.com
Crystal Cox v. Kashmir Hill of Forbes, Kenneth White of Brown White and Newhouse and the Free Speech Coaltion and others in co-conspiracy.
ia601701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.1.0.pdf
ia601701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.1.0.pdf
Crystal Cox RICO Filing naming Marc Randazza, Ken White, Free Speech Coalition and More
docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiVENkWDdpajNOV2c/edit
on my Case Filings
plaintiffcox.blogspot.com/
docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiVENkWDdpajNOV2c/edit
on my Case Filings
plaintiffcox.blogspot.com/
#10 Consumer Comment
Free Speech Attorney Marc Randazza Has Blog Removed that talked About Crystal Cox's Lawsuit Against Him
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Sunday, January 26, 2014
Here is the Page Removal Notice
This was the blog
Here is Archives of the Site
Here is the Lawsuit Marc Randazza is Despertly trying to hide in the search engines
More on this Topic
#11 Consumer Comment
Attorney Marc Randazza CONTROL Facebook; Randazza CENSORS Crystal Cox Again and Violates My First Amendment Rights in the Process
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Thursday, January 23, 2014
First Amendment, Porn Attorney Marc Randazza, Porn Attorney, CONTROLS the Courts and they in turn control GOOGLE and Facebook. Marc Randazza continues to CENSOR Crystal Cox and shut down sits that speak critical of him. Meanwhile he and his buddies have massive hate online about Crystal Cox, and have endangered her life for over a year.
Marc Randazza is Above the Law, Controls the Courts and abuses his power as an attorney. I have sued him, told the courts and continue to seek justice and am denied by those who protect organized crime and illegal prostitution rings in the porn industry.
Documents to the latest Facebook page Marc Randazza has BANNED from the Internet because its in the top 10 search and speaks critical of him personally.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
#12 Consumer Comment
Kashmir Hill Forbes CENSORS Crystal Cox
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Thursday, January 23, 2014
Blog CoxvHill.blogspot.com REMOVED;
see link below for removal
see link below for removal
So Here is a Permanent Record of my Lawsuit Attempting to GET JUSTICE.
Cox v. Hill Docket
http://ia801701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.docket.html
http://ia801701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.docket.html
Cox v. Hill Complaint
http://ia601701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.1.0.pdf
http://ia601701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.1.0.pdf
Note, Kashmir Hill Forbes had this removed from Google, Censored me, Violated my First Amendment Rights, after I posted a link to the blog here on this Rip Off Report.
#13 Consumer Comment
Marc Randazza Continues to CENSOR Me, Now Facebook Page set to Shut Down
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Facebook Page in top ten search for "marc randazza" set to shut down because Marc Randazza Labeled it a hate site, simply because it reviews him, speaks critical of him and exposes him.
#14 Consumer Comment
First Amendment Rights Attorney Marc Randazza gets Google to Shut down blog that Speaks Critical of Him.
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Monday, January 20, 2014
Can You Believe a First Amendment Rights Attorney Got a Blog Shut Down Just Because it Speaks Critical of Him?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <support@blogger.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:58 PM
Subject: Blogger blog takedown notification - http://lyingtrolllegalgroupsucks.blogspot.com/
To: (((redacted)))
Cc: blogger-dmca-notification@google.com
Hello,
We'd like to inform you that we've received a court order regarding your blog http://lyingtrolllegalgroupsucks.blogspot.com/. In accordance with the terms of the court order, we have removed content previously located at:
http://lyingtrolllegalgroupsucks.blogspot.com/
A copy of the court order we received is attached. Thank you for your understanding.
From: <support@blogger.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:58 PM
Subject: Blogger blog takedown notification - http://lyingtrolllegalgroupsucks.blogspot.com/
To: (((redacted)))
Cc: blogger-dmca-notification@google.com
Hello,
We'd like to inform you that we've received a court order regarding your blog http://lyingtrolllegalgroupsucks.blogspot.com/. In accordance with the terms of the court order, we have removed content previously located at:
http://lyingtrolllegalgroupsucks.blogspot.com/
A copy of the court order we received is attached. Thank you for your understanding.
Here is an Archive of the BLOG Marc Randazza had Removed from ONLINE, and clearly violates my First Amendment Rights to Free Speech
#15 Consumer Comment
Kashmir Hill, Journalist used Forbes to knowingly Defame and Attack Blogger Crystal Cox. Kashmir Hill reported falsely on Crystal Cox and accused her of criminal activity knowing it was FALSE.
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Thursday, January 16, 2014
Kashmir Hill of Forbes used the high profile name of Forbes to paint blogger Crystal Cox in false light, deliberately, to a world wide audience. The Obsidian v. Cox case threatens the long standing MONOPOLY in which Big Media such as Forbes has on Free Speech and on what is accepted in the eyes of society and our judicial system as "real news"; news that is protected by laws such as the Shield Law, Retraction Laws, and the First Amendment.
The Crystal Cox case makes a powerful stand in the courts for the rights of ALL citizen journalists, investigative bloggers, and whistle blowers worldwide, and especially the United States. The Crystal Cox Case is a game changer and makes a firm stand that we are ALL Journalist NOW, and when we are reporting on our experience, what we research or know as individuals out here in the real world is real "news", and should be treated as such in a court of law.
Blogs are, in a big way, News by the People for the People, and bloggers reporting on a story should have the same rights in our courts under the laws and the constitution, as traditional journalists and institutional press.
There is no special license required to be "Media", a medium of communication, or a Journalist, anyone can work for, or start a local or national newspaper. Crystal Cox chose blogs as her Medium of Communication to the world over the outdated, old news, archaic print news.
There is no special license required to be "Media", a medium of communication, or a Journalist, anyone can work for, or start a local or national newspaper. Crystal Cox chose blogs as her Medium of Communication to the world over the outdated, old news, archaic print news.
Journalists, such as Forbes Kashmir Hill should not have journalistic privilege and special rights in the courts to defame, ruin lives, lie about people and use the power of Forbes to carry out agendas, and retaliation for who she likes best or believe more, regardless of facts.
Crystal Cox had worldwide support in her stand for these now infamous Free Speech Rights until Kashmir Hill of Forbes and other Co-Conspirators defamed Crystal Cox, and distorted the facts and the whole nature of the Obsidian v. Cox lawsuit. As well as twisted the intention, mission, and motive of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox and her hundreds of blogs exposing corruption over the last decade.
In December of 2011, just after the $2.5 Million dollar verdict against Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox that ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to Blogger Crystal Cox, nor does Shield Laws, Anti-Slapp Laws or Retraction Laws; Kashmir Hill, Forbes Journalist interviewed Plaintiff Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group regarding the Obsidian v. Cox case. Kashmir Hill, to this day, has never spoke with or interviewed Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox.
Kashmir Hill reported that Crystal Cox had been under investigation by the Oregon Attorney General and that when this did not work, Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group then got their attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp law firm to sue Crystal Cox. A quick Freedom of Information request to the Oregon Attorney General says that Crystal Cox did not have so much as a consumer complaint, and certainly NOT a criminal complaint of any kind. Kaskmir Hill did not BOTHER this quick check and instead she chose to publicly defame, state with malice, that Crystal Cox had been under investigation, this is against the law, however, Forbes and Kashmir Hill seems to have special journalistic privileges to defame, lie about, ruin the life of whom ever they choose with total disregard to the rights of those they are reporting on or the facts of the matter at hand.
Kashmir Hill reported that Crystal Cox had been under investigation by the Oregon Attorney General and that when this did not work, Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group then got their attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp law firm to sue Crystal Cox. A quick Freedom of Information request to the Oregon Attorney General says that Crystal Cox did not have so much as a consumer complaint, and certainly NOT a criminal complaint of any kind. Kaskmir Hill did not BOTHER this quick check and instead she chose to publicly defame, state with malice, that Crystal Cox had been under investigation, this is against the law, however, Forbes and Kashmir Hill seems to have special journalistic privileges to defame, lie about, ruin the life of whom ever they choose with total disregard to the rights of those they are reporting on or the facts of the matter at hand.
This first article was riddled with wrong information, as you see in the link below in the lawsuit Crystal Cox filed against Forbes.
Later in December of 2011, Kashmir Hill's buddy Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group was acting as my, Crystal Cox's, lawyer. Kashmir Hill knew Marc Randazza from when she worked at "AboveTheLaw.com", Breaking Media, Inc. How well she knew him, knows him, or their friendship, business connection I do not know in detail.
Shortly after Marc Randazza told members of the First Amendment Bar that he represented Crystal Cox, and was negotiating some deal with Plaintiff Obsidian Finance Group, and their attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp, a deal in which Crystal Cox, the client, had no knowledge of, Crystal Cox FIRED Marc Randazza, more on that story at the Marc Randazza Rip Off Report Below
After this, Kashmir Hill, Forbes Journalist interviewed First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza and still did not contact Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, and the next thing we see is "Media", Forbes, defaming, attacking, and flat our maliciously lying about Crystal Cox. Forbes Journalist Kashmir Hill painted Crystal Cox out to be an Extortionist, a Criminal and someone who attacked a 3 year old, the child of attorney Marc Randazza. When in Truth, Crystal Cox is an Anti-Corruption blogger and was exposing corruption in the courts and was NOT guilty of, under investigation for, on trial for, or participating in any criminal activity, extortion or "attacks" on a child in any way.
Kashmir Hill, Reporter, even made this poor child collateral damage in her attack on me, Crystal Cox, by posting her photo, and flat out lied about Crystal Cox writing online about this child, as Crystal Cox never did that and Kashmir Hill simply listened to Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, Cox's former attorney and did not fact checking what so ever.
The entire WORLD picked up Forbes articles and though Kashmir Hill of Forbes did no fact checking, did not interview Crystal Cox, and knowingly published false information which clearly makes Forbes and Kashmir Hill liable under defamation law, well she is protected by the courts.
So far all of these folks are "Above the Law". And though it is clear that Kevin Padrick, Marc Randazza and Kashmir Hill maliciously DEFAMED blogger Crystal Cox after she already had a $2.5 million dollar judgement, they remain to be protected by the courts in which do not give equal rights to bloggers and journalists.
Here is the Judicial Ruling that Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Anti-SLAPP Laws and EVEN the First Amendment Does not apply to Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox.
"OPINION: Based on the evidence presented at the time of trial, I conclude that plaintiffs are not public figures, defendant is not "media," and the statements at issue were not made on an issue of public concern. Thus, there are no First Amendment implications. Defendant's other defenses of absolute privilege, Oregon's Shield Law, Oregon's Anti-SLAPP statute, and Oregon's retraction statutes, are not applicable. See 13-page opinion attached. Signed on 11/30/2011 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. Copy of opinion mailed and emailed to defendant."
Full Judicial Order, Click Below
Research Links on Crystal Cox fighting Back against Forbes, Kashmir Hill
More on the Crystal Cox Case
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC et al v. Cox Docket
Hearing Day Before Trial
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/117804185/Obsidian-Finance-Group-Vs-Crystal-Cox-Hearing-Day-Before-Trial
Trial Transcripts
Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal Motions
Eugene Volokh, Crystal L. Cox Appeal. Obsidian Vs. Cox Appeal Opening Brief
Obsidian Finance Group LLC V. Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Reply / Response Brief
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/144314839/Obsidian-Finance-Group-LLC-V-Crystal-Cox-Eugene-Volokh-Reply--Response-Brief
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/144314839/Obsidian-Finance-Group-LLC-V-Crystal-Cox-Eugene-Volokh-Reply--Response-Brief
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al., v. Crystal Cox,
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL
ScotusBlog.com Amicus Brief Regarding Obsidian Vs. Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CRYSTAL COX.
Audio of Ninth Circuit Hearing,
Appeal Docket
Overview of Case by Digital Media Law
#16 Author of original report
Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group, Peter L. Michaelson, Tonkon Torp David Aman, Kashmir Hill Forbes, WIPO and the Free Speech Case of Blogger Crystal Cox.
AUTHOR: CrystalCox - ()
SUBMITTED: Thursday, January 09, 2014
Attorney Marc Randazza defamed me with "actual malice". Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group gang stalked me, endangered my life, threatened me, sued me, perjured court documents against me, harassed witnesses in my cases, used big media connections such as Forbes and NPR to paint me in false light and maliciously lie about me.
Lawyer Marc Randazza used privileged information, my files, my strategy and information gained acting as he would be my attorney to later harm me, defame me, attempt to sabotage my case and sell off my appeal rights and to create a public flogging of my name, my case, my purpose and my life.
Lawyer Marc Randazza used privileged information, my files, my strategy and information gained acting as he would be my attorney to later harm me, defame me, attempt to sabotage my case and sell off my appeal rights and to create a public flogging of my name, my case, my purpose and my life.
Marc Randazza lied in federal court documents, lied in WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization complaints about me, accused me of criminal activity without filing a criminal complaint and allowing me due process of law.
Marc Randazza used his power and influence over media and the courts to ruin my life, my business, endanger me, outcast me, paint me in false light and consume my quality of life by putting me under daily, constant duress.
Marc Randazza used his power and influence over media and the courts to ruin my life, my business, endanger me, outcast me, paint me in false light and consume my quality of life by putting me under daily, constant duress.
Marc Randazza and WIPO conspirator Peter Michaelson of the INTA and ADR Chambers, LLC in Rumson, New Jersey who was the sole WIPO panelist in Marc Randazza's case against me, Crystal Cox, not only conspired to rule against me to suppress my free speech, but they also used the power of WIPO, and it's international publications to flat out accuse me of being a criminal, all this without filing a criminal complaint so that I could have due process of law.
Marc Randazza, First Amendment Bar attorney and ADR Chambers Peter L. Michaelson simply said GUILTY and published this defamation knowingly, with actual malice, which sure seems like criminal defamation to me, and to this day they continue to be protected by the courts and are above the law. They are not, as of yet, held accountable for the damage they have done to my life, my business and all those connected to me.
Not only did Peter L. Michaelson Lawyer, INTA and Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group do this to me, but they also named Eliot Bernstein, who was simply one of the thousands whom I have written stories about, reported on, over the last decade.
WIPO and many other companies and individuals connected to Marc Randazza and the porn industry of which he stands, are liable for BILLIONS in the Eliot Bernstein / iViewit Technology theft. They threw this Inventor into my case, simply to defame him, try and discredit his case, attempt to affect RICO and Racketeering complaints and they used WIPO and fraud on the courts to defame, harass, and discredit this already victim of fraud, harassment, murder attempt and a life of huge hardship over a multi-trillion dollar video technology of which Eliot Bernstein and his company iViewit were never paid.
For more on the iViewit technologly theft worth millions check out the links below
Latest motion to reOpen case, naming Marc Randazza, Peter L. Michaelson around bottom of page 59.
Docket for the above connected case
Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group spoke with me first in December of 2011 just after my case Obsidian v. Cox was over with a VERDICT of $2.5 Million Dollar judgement against me, personally and that the First Amendment did not apply to me, I was ruled NOT to be "a medium of communication" as a blogger with over 400 blogs at the time, and it was RULED that the Oregon Shield Laws and Oregon Retraction laws did not apply to me because Judge Marco Hernandez ruled that I as not a "journalist" as a matter of law and that my hundreds of blogs and thousands of posts over a decade was not MEDIA nor were they a "medium of communication".
This, I continue to believe, was to protect corruption in Portland Oregon in which involved Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Perkins Coie Law Firm, Miller Nash Law Firm, Sussman Shank Law Firm, Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp Michael Dunn, Judge Randall Dunn, Judge Michael C. Sullivan, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Tonkon Torp Lawyers Leon Simson and David Aman, Tom Stilley of Sussman Shank Law Firm, Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie, Jeanette L. Thomas, Bend Oregon DA Patrick Flaherty,
Jim Diegel of Sageview, St. Charles, Cascade Health, Obsidian Finance Group and former Cascade Health Board member Patricia Whittington, Dr. Jeffrey Gray, Dr. Benjamin Ray Eliason, Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie Law Firm, Pamela Griffith U.S. Trustee, Kevin D. Padrick Obsidian Finance Group Bankrutpcy APPOINTED Trustee, M. Vivienne Popperl attorney for U.S Trustee's Office and especially friend of Judge Marco Hernandez, Judge Michael Simon, who is a Portland power player, along with his wife Suzanne Bonamici.
Judge Michael Simon made a whole lot of money in the Summit Bankruptcy that Crystal Cox was reporting on for 3 years before Obsidian Finance Group and Tonkon Torp law firm sued her.
Judge Marco Hernandez and Judge Michael Simon were NOT federal judges in PORTLAND until after the Crystal Cox Case was filed.
Judge Michael Simon especially made large amounts of money with lawsuits against Umpqua bank, working closely with Kevin Padrick Bankruptcy Trustee and co-owner of Obsidian Finance Group.
This was all before Judge Michael Simon became a federal judge in Portland Oregon at the same time that Judge Marco Hernandez did. Before this Michael Simon was with Perkin Coie Law Firm and was PART of the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy that Blogger Crystal Cox was reporting on for the 3 years prior to being sued for 10 million dollars by the bankruptcy trustee, Kevin D. Padrick and his lawyer David Aman who were BOTH part of the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy proceedings. Michael Simon made a lot of money in the Umpqua bank lawsuits in that case and certainly does not want the DETAIL to all unravel by some blogger, who is alleged NOT a Journalist, as a matter of LAW.
Judge Michael Simon and his wife Suzanne Bonamici are well known to be a POWER TEAM in the politics and high finance communities of Portland Oregon.
Suzanne Bonamici is a U.S. House of Representative from Oregon's 1st District and Suzanne Bonamici is a former Member of the Oregon Senate from the 17th district and Member of the Oregon House of Representatives.
I, investigative Blogger Crystal Cox still believe this all affected the outcome of my case and became the Collateral Damage to the First Amendment, Free Speech rights of all Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blowers, Anti-Corruption Blogger and all Free Press in New Media.
In that first phone call with attorney Marc Randazza, he told me that he use to work for big media but much prefers bloggers and porn companies as big media has a monopoly on free speech and he did not want to do as they were telling him to do. Marc Randazza claimed that he believed in the free speech rights of bloggers such as me. He also talked about, well laughed at Obsidian Finance Group for suing me for 10 Million and getting a 2.5 Million dollar judgement, how would they collect? Yet a year later he sued me for around 3 Million himself, yes, he sued a woman he claimed to represent in a $2.5 million dollar appeal of a free speech case that sets a one of a kind precedent in new media legal cases forever more.
After this call, getting all my files, my strategy, and inside information about me, first amendment lawyer Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group contacted Tonkon Torp Lawyer David Aman, opposing counseling representing Kevin D. Padrick, David Brown and Obsidian Finance Group and made some deal that would make the case go away, would change how the verdict read on the docket; some motion or change somehow that would ensure that my case did not get an appeal and did not affect the BILLIONAIRES in the porn industry nor the bloggers that Marc Randazza, first amendment bar attorney himself represented or would represent in the future. This private deal negotiated by Marc Randazza, acting as my attorney never was disclosed to me by Marc Randazza, nor were the details ever told to me.
I found out by another attorney in the first amendment bar that Marc Randazza had told about this alleged deal he was working out "for me", allegedly the client, of which I knew NOTHING about.
Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group told members of the First Amendment Bar that he represented me and was in negotiations regarding my Ninth Circuit Appeal Case, Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox. This insured that no other attorney contacted me, as they did not want to step on the toes of Marc Randazza, First Amendment Attorney.
Meanwhile, Marc Randazza had not signed a contract with me, had not discussed what deal he was presenting to opposing counsel on my behalf and the clock was ticking on my deadline to file an appeal. I fully believe Marc Randazza was chasing off other attorneys and letting the clock tick, so that he could work whatever deal he had planned, with no chance of me having another attorney nor filing an appeal myself because he was "my attorney".
Meanwhile, Marc Randazza had not signed a contract with me, had not discussed what deal he was presenting to opposing counsel on my behalf and the clock was ticking on my deadline to file an appeal. I fully believe Marc Randazza was chasing off other attorneys and letting the clock tick, so that he could work whatever deal he had planned, with no chance of me having another attorney nor filing an appeal myself because he was "my attorney".
What Marc Randazza did not know was that I, Crystal Cox had already spoke to another attorney before all this on a possible future representation that had not been affirmed yet. Luckily this attorney let me know that Marc Randazza claimed he was my attorney and was working a deal, and putting in time an effort on this matter, this case, this appeal.
Soon after this violation of my rights, I fired Marc Randazza, and let him know FIRMLY, that he did not represent me. In the meantime, I bought MarcRandazza.com as one of the thousands of domain names I had bought over the years to continue my reporting on my case and related free speech issues.
I never posted anything negative on Marc Randazza at that time and I fully believed him when he said no hard feelings and wished me luck on my case and said to let him know if I need any help. So I asked him if he knew anyone needing PR as I was very good at it and seriously, desperately broke. On that same communication I told him I had bought MarcRandazza.com to do PR on my case and now that he would not be my attorney, I still planned to use the site for my case and first amendment issues but could also promote him if he wanted me to. He went into a RAGE, demanded I give him the name, said I had no right to own the name that apparently he never thought of buying and odd he had touted himself as a domain name lawyer and expert, and he also represented someone who owned the domain name GlenBeckRapedandMurderedaYoungGirlin1990.com and he won that case and seemed to think that it was fine to have the names of others in a domain name, but not for me.
So, when I refused to give him the domain name, he began a campaign of hate, sabotage, defamation and retaliation. Starting with contacting opposing counsel David Aman of Tonkon Torp law firm again and this time offering to be deposed and state that I had extorted him, for the record.
I am also under the understanding that lawyers Marc Randazza and David Aman spoke with Judge Marco Hernandez and convinced him that I, Crystal Cox had extorted them both. Next thing you know we see a federal judge, Judge Marco Hernandez accuse a blogger who was in a civil trial of a criminal act in a denial of a new trial of that civil trial.
The New York Times and many others pick this up and WHAM, my own attorney has publicly, maliciously, with KNOWLEDGE of its non-fact defamed me and set me up for a lifetime of this criminal label.
David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, Two attorneys, officers of the court sworn to uphold law and ethics, and a federal judge accuse me of the crime of extortion yet file no criminal complaint, give me no attorney and allow me no due process what so ever. Hundreds of bloggers around the world pick up the story, as well as big and small media worldwide and I am tarnished for life as a CRIMINAL in a civil trial by the actions of a man that was acting as my attorney at one time.
I then used my online sites to report on my former attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group in hopes to warn others and to expose what he had done to me, and the power and influence he has over the courts and media, this was in hopes to STOP him from creating future victims.
After this, Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group continued his campaign against me, his former client. And he filed a lawsuit against me to suppress my speech and named iViewit inventor Eliot Bernstein as a defendant also. Marc Randazza filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against me out of the District of Nevada for using his name in my domain names, blogs and online speech, speaking critical of him. After he filed the lawsuit, he did not BOTHER to serve me, he got his lawyer friends to post the legal case online and defame me, harass me and paint me out to be what he said I was, with NO fact what so ever.
I contacted the Nevada Courts myself in order to be served via eMail so that I could respond to this case and expose Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group, his own law firm who represented him to sue me, Crystal L. Cox, his former client whom he BETRAYED.
Then Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group filed a motion, well he had his lawyer Ronald Green of his law firm Randazza Legal Group do it, anyway it was a motion called a Preliminary TRO, he was granted this motion and therefore allowed to seize my domain names, shut down sites and essentially attempt to put a gag order on me, his former client for exercising my rights to speak freely about him aKa my Free Speech Rights, my First Amendment Rights which he hypocritical pretends to love and legal protect but now, all the sudden does not LOVE the proverbial free speech because it speaks critical of him personal and exposes his bad, unethical and possibly corrupt actions, possible fraud on the courts and bad dangerous behavior.
So the Nevada courts and his buddy Judge Gloria Navarro not only granted Marc Randazza an unethical, unconstitutional TRO that shut down my free speech online, but Judge Gloria Navarro, in complete violation of my legal rights ordered that Godaddy, the registrar not simply lock the domain names until the dispute is over, but also allow Marc J. Randazza to change the server and redirect my PROPERTY to his Blog, and a page which hatefully defamed ME, the defendant in the case, his former client.
Keep in mind it was November of 2012 when my former alleged free speech rights attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group sued me for millions for exercising my Free Speech Rights against him, and so this shut down my sites, my intellectual property, my online media and my FREE SPEECH in an instant and for well over a year now withNO DUE PROCESS or First Amendment adjudication. This also redirected all of my HIGH SEARCH ENGINE ranking for the name Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group to a page on Marc Randazza's blog TRASHING, defaming, attacking and painting me in false light.
All this, even though Marc Randazza himself had previously state that preliminary TRO was unconstitutional, below are research Links on this.
Check out the bottom of page 3 of this one, Marc's own case quote
Throughout the last 14 months and counting, Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group has filed motions to take my intellectual property, to silence me, to suppress me speech, to sanction me, to deem me a vexatious litigant, to take away my right to email him communications and to file electronically in this harassing Nevada SLAPP case filed to suppress my speech.
In the above case I was DENIED the right to counter claim and I was forced by Judge Gloria Navarro to change my responseand only address the issues she allowed me to address in my own defense, representing myself, pro se.
It is clear, as a matter of law that Marc Randazza is liable for his actions against me and I am legally allowed a counter complaint and it is clear that my ex-attorney Marc John Randazza of Randazza Legal Group violated my constitutional rights, endangered me, defamed me, committed hate crimes against me, denied me due process, painted me in false light, stole my property and is clearly GUILTY of Malpractice in his representation of me.
Thus far I have gotten no justice and continue to be sued, harassed and publicly defamed by Marc Randazza and his gang stalking attorney friends and media such as Kashmir Hill of Forbes, Tracy Coenen of the Fraud Files, Mark Bennett of Bennett and Bennett, PopeHat.com's Kenneth P. White of Brown White and Newhouse Law Firm, Eric Turkewitz of Turkewitz Law Firm, Bob Garfield of NPR and more high profile bloggers, legal bloggers, law firms, and media.
#17 Consumer Comment
Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group named in RICO, Racketeering Lawsuit in MAJOR Technology Theft Case out of New York
AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, January 08, 2014
Source of Marc Randazza Crystal Cox Rip Off Report
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Marc-Randazza-of-Randazza-Legal-Group/Las-Vegas-Nevada-89135/Marc-Randazza-of-Randazza-Legal-Group-Marc-Randazza-of-Randazza-Legal-Group-Marc-Randazza-1112488#comment_1
No comments:
Post a Comment