THIS BLOG IS FOR SALE, along with hundreds of other of my online newspapers and publications. My life is focused on my church, my spiritual and healing work. I am selling individual blogs (online magazine publications), all blogs, individually to the highest bidder. If you Like one of my online magazines, my publications, my intellectual property, and want to make me an offer, email me at . This FOR Sale posted by Reverend Crystal Cox, Bringing Back Goddess Church.

Also Note, if you wish to hire me to do any online marketing or investigative blogging work use that same email.

Friday, November 28, 2014

Folks Just because Marc Randazza, Adam Steinbaugh and Kenneth White KEEP lying and abusing the court process. Does not make it right and it does not make their blather the TRUTH. They are on the WRONG side of the LAW and the wrong side of the Moral Compass.

Ken White: Still Stroking his Favorite Prick 
Marc Randazza

No Matter How Many Randazza Legal Groupies SHOUT
Loud and Proud Defending the hypocrisy, arrogance and lawlessness of 
their Porn God Marc Randazza; 
Well the LIE is STILL the LIE

No matter how many of you Jackass lying, lawless attorneys come to protect Marc Randazza from a girl picking on him, well that does not change the ADJUDICATED FACTS.

Kenneth White of does not tell the NOT the truth, that is not his mission.

oh and CLUELESS KEN WHITE I did not sue Marc Randazza to SHUT HIM UP.

I sued to fight for my life, to fight back and 
to stand up for victims not to CENSOR. 
You have me confused with Fucktard Marc Randazza.

Kenneth White of is simply protecting the Agenda of Porn Attorneys and the Free Speech Coalition which is an organization to protect Porn Companies and DOES not protect those in the industry which is easily seen by the investigative blogs of Monica Foster aKa Alexandra Melody and Desi Foxx aKa Diana Grandmasson.

Kenneth White speaks out his ASS. 

Yes look at the Crystal Cox case, one women, me, fighting back as hard as I have been able to and Pro Se, which  Kenneth White slams all pro se folks because then the Randazza Legal Groupies can't make their quick buck.

Kenneth White is protected by the owner of the rip off report. Look at my Rip Off Report on Marc Randazza, it's the only Rip Off Report EVER where the person complaining gets pushed down in the report to make for for  Kenneth White to lie about me, the person who filed the complaint.

Rip Off Report won't let me post anymore to this. Rip Off Report gave Ken White a spot on top of my report unlike any other Rip Off Report . 

Believe what you want about me, I don't really care. I keep yapping to help their other victims not stand alone or look to the be the only ones who have had the same abusive, lawless, unconstitutional experience with the Randazza Legal Groupies.

Look at the Joseph Rakofsky Case, Crystal Cox Case, Monica Foster Case, Righthaven and many more. Pay Attention to the forced attorney fees, settlements and the attorneys who blog parts of motions that Randazza tells them to as if Marc Randazza's LIES in court motions is Adjudicated Fact when really it is lying blather that abuses the court process for private retaliation and personal gain.

Kenneth White recently said: 

"Roca Labs is mistaking aggression for strategy. Randazza, by filing his notice of related case, has alerted the federal court hearing the case that Roca Labs is flailing around suing opposing lawyers, which will not go over well. Roca Labs has hired what appears to be an improbably matriculated Muppet to champion their case, despite a patent lack of qualifications. Roca Labs thinks that suing Marc Randazza to shut him up is going to end well. They should have asked Raanan Katz or Crystal Cox how that would turn out."

yes ASK Crystal Cox. I am Pleased with how things have turned out SO FAR. I have Exposed a THUG of a lying hypocritical asshole attorney, and hey I am just a one girl.

Hey Hypocritical LAWLESS Asshole Ken White, IT IS NOT aggressive to stand up to aggression. We are defending ourselves against YOUR ILLEGAL Attacks. There are tons of related cases. Randazza is unethical, and acts outside of the law in the same way over and over. The proof is EASY to see.
Tell the TRUTH. Do the RIGHT Thing.

Win or Lose ROCA LABS is the Tipping Point. As there is NO DENYING what YOU Randazza Legal Groupies do acting in conspiracy, aiding and abetting.

Whether the courts "believe" it or not, well that will be what it will be. But there is so much proof now, for you to keep Yammering the LIE is simply futile.


Ken White seems to think if you lie over and over it becomes the TRUTH, that is SIMPLY not a Reality based Notion or course of action as I See it.

Marc Randazza is the one that uses AGGRESSION instead of strategy. 

Randazza bullies, he sues, he threatens, he steals banking and wire information, he calls your ex's and threatens them, he calls your customer and clients and threatens them, he forces information from your church, he violates your constitutional rights, he violates your privacy rights, he endangers your life, makes your private emails public, violates your client rights, allegedly threatens to throw bombs if he can get away with it rumor has it, and he posts the make and models of porn insiders cars and hopes death upon them. Randazza is dangerously, violently, above the law AGGRESSIVE and so his his THUG gang stalking groupies and Randazza seems to think it's "Strategy".

Caution 100% FACT BELOW

Roca Labs Says:

"Despite being an Officer of the Court and a practicing member of the Florida Bar, RANDAZZA has waged his war against ROCA by intentionally and maliciously publishing many false and defamatory statements in his pleadings, with the intent to share them to his contacts in the media, and indeed by directly speaking to the media about ROCA with the intent to have them publish false, misleading and defamatory articles about ROCA, and by harassing and making derogatory statements about ROCA via his personal social media sites including his Twitter account"

Source and Full Legal Action against First Amendment PORN Attorney Marc Randazza aKa scumbag, hypocritical asshole, liar, and lawless."

NOW That is FACT whether a Court Agrees or NOT does not change that it is fact and the Randazza Legal Groupies do it over and over, year after year, case after case, target after target.

Folks, Look at the Details of the Crystal Cox case. The JUDGE sure seems to be getting Randazza's GAME. And he won't be able to play it much longer on many more victims. YAY.

Seems like my counterclaims are still alive and Dickhead Dazza's claims are actually NULL and VOID. .. have I really LOST Kenny Boy BLATHER?  Or do I just need a GOOD attorney to get My 10 Million for me?

 Easy Money.. Defamation and Malpractice still alive and WELL as far as I see it.
Want to Represent me? eMail me at 

Randazza v. Cox and COUNTERCLAIM Docket

Thing is YA look at my case. I would say I WON. 

I have exposed these guys, I fought back and I continue to so how did Randazza beat ME, Crystal Cox? HE DID NOT. Just because the courts FAIL to obey the law and FAIL to bring the Randazza Legal Groupies to Justice thus far that does not mean there will not be a tipping point and one day they will ALL go to Prison. That's my WISH.  And that they stop creating victims of porn industry whistleblowers and anyone else they don't like for whatever reason they come up with.

They attacked me for years from all sides 
and still I am in HISTORY books and they are NOT.
So Neener Neener

I WON. They DID NOT. YaY for Me. 

And well Roca Labs may win, maybe not. WHATEVER. What they said on the docket is FACT plain and simple over and over. And one day the Randazza Legal Groupies will go to PRISON for Criminal RICO and Racketeering.. Oh I hope and Pray.

Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group is KING of "frivolous lawsuits"

Marc Randazza got all BUTTHURT cuz I called his wife a slut, I bought his domain name and his wife and child... WOW and he was advertising as a Domain Name and trademark expert... NOT!!

oh and I FIRED his dumb, arrogant, abusive ass so he did not get to be the attorney on MY groundbreaking, landmark, stunning, first of it's kind AMAZING Free Speech case that I fought for and has now made history. And I WAS PRO SE.

Eugene Volokh, my awesome attorney on the case, defended the merits of the case I had already laid out and guess what I WON and now ALL Independent Bloggers have Equal Rights in the courts And the MONOPOLY that Big Media HAD on Free SPEECH is over.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group is NOT a TRUE First Amendment Advocate, he is a First Amendment Expert and he uses that to get his way, bully his targets, engage in online defamation and harassment campaigns and to STEAL intellectual property, get settlements, get his legal fees FORCED and much more SICK and I Allege, Illegal Outcomes.




The Ken White, unethical, paint in false light, flat out lying blog post is at
"Roca Labs, Lacking A Hornet Nest Into Which It Could Stick Its Dick, Has Sued Marc Randazza"

Adam Steinbaugh and Ken White.. Stroke Stroke Stroke on their favorite PRICK Marc Randazza. But gee darn that will NEVER turn the LIE into the TRUTH no matter how much you blather at what a GOOD GUY your hypocritical asshole GODDAZZA is.

Thursday, November 27, 2014

"Feed the Trolls!?!" Lawyer Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group, Lawyer Scott H. Greenfield, and continued hypocritical harassment.

"TechDirt: “Why Moderating Comments Doesn’t Remove Section 230 Protection, And Why More Lawyers Need To Understand This” by Tim Cushing quotes Marco Randazza, of the blawg “The Legal Satyricon” in which Randazza published: “No…. Section 230 does not prohibit you from being responsible“:
47 USC Section 230 is the federal statute that provides legal immunity to online service providers for lawsuits based on content provided by third parties. Because of this law, if someone posts a defamatory comment on this blog, I am not liable for that content. Period. There are some very very narrow exceptions, which don’t warrant discussion for the purposes of this post — because we aren’t going to delve into nuance here.
I want to clear up one bit of bullshit that seems to continue to walk the earth, sort of like a legal bullshit zombie. The bullshit is the notion that if I delete ANY comments on this blog, then I lose my Section 230 immunity.
This issue is apparently being misstated in CLE classes and Randazza wants to clear up this zombie lie. Concluding:
If you’re a Section 230 protected website operator and your lawyer has ever told you that you can’t act responsibly, lest you lose protection, then pick up your phone and dial his number (or her number, whatever). I presume you’ll get his voicemail. Leave this message “Hey, you’re either really stupid, or fucking dishonest. In either event, you’re fired, fucktard.”
Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice also wrote about Randazza’s issue in “Troll Management“:
Dealing with trolls is easy. Delete. Not making people stupider is a responsibility. If you claim you don’t have the time to clean up your mess, then you have no business having a blog, and, frankly, you’re full of it. It only takes a second to straighten up the house.
At the same time, if no one trolls you, then you haven’t offered an idea worth publishing anyway.
zombie marco randazzazombie scott greenfield
More recently, Randazza’s linked to image of a counter-protest of a Westboroprotest, “I wish I was a good enough person to have thought of this” which is sort of trolls on trolls. Which is sort of what the internet is.
Contrast, another recent Randazza post about judgment against revenge porn operators. So I guess 230 didn’t protect them? Is it just because it was child porn? I’m guessing that’s where 230(e)(1) becomes relevant, but I’m confused, I guess comments do still need some moderation if they are naked pictures?
Anyway, I generally like trolls. This whole blog is sort of troll art (plucking quoted-gems from passerby writers who dare to cross these network bridges), in a sense I am trolling the word “zombie” amongst journalists, lawyers and political professionals who spread this viral word. And yet even if it is trolling, I would still argue that this trolling is valuable for free expression and the academic study of culture and satire in it’s own right! Satire for satires’ sake! Indeed, Randazza’s blog is called Satyricon.Satyrs:
one of a troop of male companions of Pan and Dionysus with goat-like (caprine) feature
And weevwas part of Goatse Security. In 2008 Nytimes article “The Trolls Among Us” by Mattathias Schwartz, a picture of a fresh-faced weev and the story of a myspace hacked with “zombie” picture. Also definition:
Internet users adopted the word “troll” to denote someone who intentionally disrupts online communities.
But ya know, sometimes the community needs some disrupting. Particularly when it’s acting in unjust ways and everyone knows but doesn’t know what to do about it. It’s easy to blame the speaker (shoot the messenger) but if simple speech can rile the community then something is wrong in the community. Sometimes the better way to fix it would be to engage in the conversation rather than censor it. Like these Westboro-counterprotesters, don’t try to ban the speech, engage the protester with empathy:
“sorry for your loss”
Maybe that’s how we should all greet each other from now on, “sorry for your loss”.
Or maybe I’m just “The Boy Who Loved Trolls” ?
Today Greenfield also posted “Work/Life Balance: The Zombie Walks” challenging that zombie myth of:
Work/life balance. That fabulous concept that your work as a lawyer takes a backseat to your personal life.

Practicing law isn’t the death of a fun life, but it is a responsibility,
Hey Mr. Greenfield, I’m sorry for your loss.
E.E. Buckels et al, “Trolls just want to have fun,” Personality and Individual Differences, 2014.
See also video game in ArsTechnica: “Goat Simulator preview: Goat of the year Surprise! The dumbest announcement of 2014 has actually turned into a fun game.” by Sam Machkovech, quotes co-creator, Armin Ibrisagic:
you get points for doing stupid stuff.

And finally, see the classic Andy Griffith show episode: “The Loaded Goat” — you could shoot that overeating goat (delete it) but if you want to, stand back, flaming may ensue.
So in the end, maybe the legal advice to not delete any comments and pretend like you can’t is actually safer than assigning a social media intern to decide which goats are safe to shoot.


Randazza Legal Groupies DEFINED; posted here by Bat Shit Crazy Crystal Cox SWORN Enemy of Marc Randazza and ALL of his Lawless EVIL Conspirators. Oh and the REAL First Amendment HERO.

Randazza Legal Groupies :

I, Crystal L. Cox, ALLEGE this is a group of lawyers, bloggers, court news reporters, registrars, radio and big media, WIPO, INTA and more acting in pattern and history (RICO) conspiring against targets in legal cases in a criminal defamation campaign to affect court cases for personal financial gain and to affect legal precedence. ( I allege Racketeering ) intellectual property experts, First Amendment experts, INTA members, porn attorneys, law firms, Ninth Circuit lawyers and law reporters, stalkers, First Amendment attorneys, and more in

These targets are individuals, companies, porn insiders, whistle blowers, ex-clients, people who are higher in the search engines, people or companies who have intellectual property they want and whomever they decide they are going to TARGET for what ever their latest agenda is.

This group of attorneys use their legal expertise, law degrees, power as officers of the court, big media and radio connections, corrupt judges and clout to abuse the legal process and the courts, and I allege to commit fraud on the courts in order to seek revenge, affect settlement offers, get clients, get legal precedence for future case, and further their careers as well as get some sort of sick pleasure abusing their victims constitutional rights while at the same time promoting themselves and their LEADER attorney Marc Randazza as Pro Free Speech for ALL and First Amendment Rights for ALL, while they VIOLATED the First Amendment Rights of their TARGETS again and again.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group abuses the power of the courts and abuses the court process to harass, stalk, defame, taunt, ridicule, and seek revenge.

Marc Randazza filed for a restraining order against me, Blogger Crystal Cox, in a Nevada court. This pedophile supporting, gang stalking, human trafficking supporting porn attorney filed for protection against me for speaking critical of him online. Wa Wa.

He withdraw the filing for some reason, either way I could not go to his local court to defend it anyway, as I do not live anywhere near him. Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group has continued to harass me, sue me, defame me, violate my privacy rights and my constitutional rights.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, in my experience is a dangerous man connected to the mafia rumor has it. His clients are the VERY biggest in Porn. He is said to get his way in any court, and well he is above the law and does whatever he pleases to whomever he pleases.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group used a court case against me to further harass and stalk Monica Foster aKa Alexandra Melody and to pry into her personal life. He also named her in the motions and defamed her then had his gang stalking legal blogger buddies taunt, harass, torment and torture her.

Many that are targeted by these THUGS commit suicide, some actually do and some are made to look like suicide from what I have heard over the years.

Then he sued Monica Foster, well his SLUT wife Jennifer Randazza did. Even though Marc Randazza had stated in his case against me that was in my control and I created the Graphic he later sued Monica Foster for creating. Even though it is CLEAR that it was a parody and art and protected by the First Amendment WITHOUT A DOUBT.

Marc Randazza DEFENDED Rush Limbaugh's Right to Call a Woman a SLUT
oh about the SLUT thing, well you see If Jenny bo Benny wants to sue me and say that my Opinion of her being a SLUT is Defamation well nothing I can. However, the whole drunken tryst, non-protected sex with a PORN attorney and getting knocked up. Well if I prove she is or was a SLUT then is my critical speech protected? Hmmm.. well it is my personal belief that if you have unprotected SEX with a porn attorney knowing that you may get "something" ewweee and gooey, well ya SLUT .. that's just how I see it.

Oh and remember the video where Randazza said to a guy bitching about his wife being called names.. Marc said hey Howie, if ya love Free Speech ya gotta love it all. Well I stand on the First Amendment Podium, Out and Proud; and I Shout "Jennifer Randazza is a SLUT". So neener neener.

So anyway back to the topic at hand, Why does Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group and his buddies "get" to be above the law and taunt, stalk, harass, bully, and constantly torment their targets and be protected by the courts, judges and given a YAY Marc in legal blogs, Forbes, NPR and more.

Well dig deep folks, this guy is very connected and you LOSE.

The only reason Monica and I have been able to expose his hypocritical lawless ass is because we work for GOD and we had / have faith that if we died for this cause then that is meant to be. I don't speak for or to Monica, in fact we don't speak anymore at all due to Randazza's tormented lying, harassing campaign that has no boundaries not even a relationship to one's pastor. Randazza will use anything he can against his target. The LAW, well that's for him to use against other people; his targets. And damn well better not be used to expose his dumb, lawless, hypocritical ass.

I personally believe that Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group would harm and by that I mean KILL Monica Foster in a minute if he thought he could get away with it. Just in my Opinion of Course.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group posted her car make and model, and "hoped" she died. I believe he paid Ari Bass aKa Michael Whiteacre and Sean Tompkins to taunt, defame, torment, harass and stalk Monica Foster and her family.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, from what I have seen, heard, read and experienced, has tormented Monica Foster for years and yet after he sues her, defames her, taunts and stalks her then WOW he gets one of his corrupt or clueless Nevada Judges to get a protective order against HER to protect him from her. WOW. Really?

What a Whiny, Hypocritical, Butthurt, Evil, Dangerous, Lawless PRICK. 
oh in my Opinion.

Gripe Sites, Parody, Sucks Sites, Art that Expresses oneself and may be critical of others, and well SPEECH and More SPEECH is all protected under the First Amendment. UNLESS a First Amendment Expert uses his First Amendment knowledge, power and court process to target those who speak critical of him and his family. 
Then the First Amendment DOES not apply.

So . to To Read the Randazza Hypocrisy Protective Order against a woman he and his THUGS stalked for years .. click below..

If you cannot read the document and want to eMail me at 

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group and others named in Southern District of New York RICO

UNITED STATES DISRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; RICO Naming Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group and others in Alleged Conspiracy.


70. That Self Acclaimed “Porn Industry” Attorney at Law, Randazza, files complaints with
this international intellectual property agency in attempts to seize domain names from
Cox that have his name in the URL and have many links to this RICO and suppress her
blogs and at the same time defame her and Plaintiff.

71. That on June 2012 Randazza filed a CZECH Complaint against Cox and Plaintiff. The
Czech Arbitration Court case worker was Tereza Bartoskova. The Czech Arbitration
Court case number was Administrative proceeding No. 100472. This domain name
dispute was filed by Randazza.

It was filed against Cox and again Plaintiff was inserted and then without notice this case was withdrawn as Cox prepared and filed her response.

Czech Arbitration Court case Administrative Proceeding No. 100472 is hereby included
as evidence into this case, in its entirety, including but not limited to, all documents,
emails, filings, answers, phone records and all information in this case.

72. Czech Arbitration Court case Administrative proceeding No. 100472 was cancelled after
months of document and exhibit submissions by Randazza as well as Respondent. Cox’s
answer was filed. Randazza did not notify Respondents, Plaintiff and Cox that he had
withdrawn the complaint.

Randazza then, at some point after this, and with no reason as to why the Czech case was cancelled, filed a WIPO Dispute with the same claims. In July 2012, Randazza filed a WIPO Complaint against Cox and again, Plaintiff is inserted from start to finish.


73. That this complaint was never served on Plaintiff and no response was tendered in his
defense of this matter, which falsely accuses and defames Plaintiff, stating he has
committed “Extortion” and more.

74. That a decision was reached by a one person panelist, this time amazingly by Michaelson,
they very guy Defendant Proskauer tried to have in their WIPO complaints but was
refused, now ignores his conflicts, which precluded his involvement in the Proskauer
WIPO action listed above and jumps right in. Michaelson denies repeated formal written
requests by Cox for disclosure of conflicts and fails to affirm or deny. Michaelson then
makes determinations in the matter that outright accuses Plaintiff and Cox of the criminal
act of “Extortion” and more, which then goes on to be Published in MAJOR NEWS
PUBLICATIONS, defaming and harassing Cox and Plaintiff and accusing them
publically in Official Proceedings and the Press of crimes they had never been accused or
tried for. Sounds eerily similar to the claims of Celani in the ECC articles when
referencing those who were set up intentionally for crimes that were 100% bogus.

75. That Plaintiff had never been charged at that time or any time with extortion in a criminal
or civil matter, nor has he ever been accused, prosecuted or tried for such crime but with
Michaelson’s decision claiming such false and fabricated accusations, a false media 
campaign was bolstered by an illegally rendered decision and word spread purposely and
from a small spark a wild fire of defamatory press has ensued.

76. That Cox has filed a RICO and a Defamation lawsuit and Plaintiff will soon follow
against all those involved.

77. That WIPO has no legal capacity to rule on criminal matters or to allege publically in a
decision that anyone is acting criminally based on their findings, without that person
being found guilty by the proper criminal authorities, yet this is exactly what happened,
again illustrating another abuse of process that defames Plaintiff.

78. That again the WIPO panelist that makes these defamatory claims is conflicted to
Defendants in this RICO Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, MPEG, Judith Kaye and
others, as fully exhibited in Cox’s filings in the action, and whereby all filings of this
WIPO complaint are hereby incorporated in entirety by reference herein.

79. That in the WIPO decision by Michaelson, he quotes from David Carr of The New York
Times in a published article21, "Ms. Cox, who calls herself an ‘investigative blogger,’ has
a broad range of conspiratorial/journalistic interests. She has written that Bruce Sewell,
the general counsel of Apple, ‘aids and abets criminals’; that Jeffrey Bewkes, the Chief
Executive of Time Warner, is ‘a proven technology thief’; and that various Proskauer
Rose lawyers have engaged in a pattern of ‘conspiracy,’” in order to make Cox look not
credible in reporting on Bruce Sewell, General Counsel of Defendant Apple, former
General Counsel of Defendant Intel and on Defendant Time Warner Inc., BOTH who are
directly involved in the iViewit case. Thereby, David Carr of the New York Times is
found using "big media" that is well trusted by the public, in order to discredit the
iViewIt Technology story, this RICO Lawsuit and the “Legally Related” lawsuits and
acts to further defame and slander Plaintiff.

80. That Randazza through the aid of New York Attorney Michaelson acting in conflict and
who upon being repeatedly requested to affirm or deny conflicts by Cox fails to either
confirm or deny his conflicts with Kenneth Rubenstein, MPEG LA, and Ex Supreme
Court Judge Judith Kay.

That Michaelson in essence frames Plaintiff and Cox with charges of “Extortion” through misuse of an international agency and further illegally seizes domains and Intellectual Properties of Plaintiff and Cox.

81. That Michaelson, WIPO sole Panelist in the decision, frames, defames and slanders
Plaintiff and Cox in an internationally published domain name and intellectual property
decision of WIPO"

"82. That Michaelson, WIPO sole Panelist, Marc J. Randazza v. Reverend Crystal Cox, Eliot
Bernstein, Case No. D2012-1525, States, "Fourth, Respondent Cox exhibited bad faith in
transferring ownership of some of the disputed domain names to Respondent Bernstein,
who merely served as a proxy of the former, in an attempt to evade liability (via so-called
“cyberflight”) under the Policy." This is entrapment, as Plaintiff received domain names
in receivership and part of no cyberflight, and Plaintiff was not, nor is not now a “Proxy.”


83. That on information and belief this case is related matter to the Randazza WIPO case


86. That on November 28th, 2012 Randazza of RLG, former Attorney of Cox, now files
District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL against his former client Cox and
allegedly against Plaintiff directly.

87. That on November 30th, 2012, the WIPO decision against Cox and Plaintiff obtained
through the conflicts of interest of Michaelson is then used to support the allegations
against Cox and Plaintiff to the Nevada court as evidence of their criminal acts, all the

22 Docket Link

23 Recent Filing Links
Randazza V. Cox



Cox Reply to Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Insurance Documentation


Cox Response - Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Case Management Conference

Motion to Reconsider Counter Complaint Dismissal and leave to amend counter complaint to meet court specifications 

while continuing the defamation that Plaintiff and Cox are now guilty of the crime of
extortion and more.

88. That Plaintiff has recently learned that he may also be a defendant in this suit. While
Plaintiff has not been legally served this complaint, it appears from the Pacer listing that
once again Plaintiff has been added to a complaint without proper notice or service and
according to the docket judgments have been entered against him.

89. That once again, Defendants of this RICO & ANTITRUST are involved in this action
against Cox and now apparently Plaintiff directly as a Defendant, including but not
limited to, Defendant Greenberg Traurig who now shows up. 

90. That Judge Gloria Navarro (“Navarro”), in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-
GMN-PAL stated, "The Domain Names at issue in this case were registered by
Defendant Crystal Cox some of which were listed under proxy, Defendant Eliot
Bernstein…” The Footnote in regard to this statement refers to Randazza making this 
claim to Judge Navarro as fact. (Docket Entry 14, Page 2 of 12).

91. That Plaintiff was not a "proxy" and therefore Judge Navarro defamed Plaintiff in
claiming this to be a fact and therefore this became part of a ruling to seize Intellectual
Properties of both Cox and Plaintiff, which was exposing those involved in this RICO
and the “Legally Related” lawsuits.

For the Navarro to claim Plaintiff is a "proxy" in this situation is to suggest criminal activity and that Plaintiff was aiding Cox in hiding alleged "assets", yet another criminal allegation and therefore upon my knowledge and belief, this represents alleged entrapment and criminal conspiracy between Judge Navarro and Randazza. 

92. That Navarro, in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL through an
unlawful, unconstitutional TRO, Preliminary injunction, removed online news sites that
contained investigative reporting regarding the Iviewit companies and the unethical
action of Randazza via this abuse of process.

93. That Navarro, in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Docket Entry 14
granted Randazza a mass of domain names, with no due process to Plaintiff or Cox and
Navarro also states on page 6 and in the footnotes that "Defendants" (this includes
Plaintiff), is guilty of acquiring domain names, intellectual property in "bad faith" and 
discusses the offering of a domain name that allegedly had adverse content on it 
regarding Randazza, which is false information and is also entrapment to suggest
"Defendants" are in conspiracy in a "bad faith" extortion scheme.

These are criminal allegations by Navarro in a Civil Case, cleverly designed to discredit, defame and harass Plaintiff and Investigative Blogger Cox who is reporting on the Iviewit story, this 
Lawsuit and the “Related Lawsuits.” 

94. That Navarro, in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Docket Entry 14,
page 8, accuses Plaintiff of “cyber-extortion,” which is criminal. 

Judge Navarro is not "Immune" from prosecution for these false allegations in judicial rulings based upon materially false information regarding crimes that were never committed, prosecuted or
tried and where there has been no prosecution or charges of such crimes against Plaintiff 72
and Cox. Therefore, these decisions appear intended solely to defame and harass 
Plaintiff and Cox further and discredit the iViewit companies, this RICO lawsuit and the
“Legally Related” cases.

95. That Page 1, Document 41, District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, is a
Ruling, which also accuses Plaintiff of being a "proxy", which is a criminal allegation.
Document 41 also grants Randazza a Preliminary Injunction that violates the First
Amendment Rights of Plaintiff and Cox, as it removes massive online content without
First Amendment adjudication first, going wholly in opposite of long standing

96. That District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Docket Entry 39 Grants a
Default Judgment against Plaintiff whom has never been legally served in this case or
received any communications from this Nevada court.

97. That it appears that Ronald Green (“Green”) of RLG, who at the time of filing this
complaint against Cox and Bernstein, had just recently jumped from working at
Defendant Greenberg Traurig’s law firm (in the intellectual property group no less) to
RLG, just in time to prepare in undisclosed conflict, the purported service papers served
in this lawsuit to Plaintiff.

98. That Roxanne Grinage (“Grinage”) was hired and retained by Plaintiff to perform legal
services for Plaintiff. Grinage was under retained legal contract with Plaintiff and
Grinage was given proprietary, confidential, privileged information in this process,
regarding the highly complex details of the iViewit companies, including but not limited 73
to, information regarding intellectual properties, highly sensitive and confidential
information related to business negotiations and federal, state and international
investigation information and all legal actions Plaintiff is involved in.

99. That as a prudent standard of practice, Grinage at her request was copied in emails to
executives of technology companies Plaintiff was negotiating with and other important
legal communications, as she was under contract with Plaintiff and performing related
tasks and legal contract work for Plaintiff on these contacts. It was important to keep
Grinage in the communication loop in these matters, as they pertained to past and future
legal work in which Grinage was under contract to perform for Plaintiff.

100. That in one such series of confidential email communication, regarding communications
with Apple executives Steve Dowling and Bruce Sewell, regarding a website owned by
Plaintiff, that contained information regarding Plaintiff’s
complaint to the SEC regarding Sewell and Intel while he was General Counsel at Intel
and notifying Dowling who had released an Apple press release announcing Sewell’s
arrival at Apple of Sewell’s involvement in the Technology Thefts of Plaintiff while at
Defendant Intel and the SEC complaint filed against Intel naming Sewell.

101. That Dowling had contacted Plaintiff to see if he would sell him back the website and where Plaintiff believes that Sewell was behind this call
attempting to entrap Plaintiff into an extortion scheme where Plaintiff would extort
Dowling with some extreme number “or else.” However, none of that happened as
Plaintiff offered no amount and no “or else” but rather Plaintiff used the opportunity 74
instead to give notice to Apple executive Dowling that Apple and Intel were Defendants
in the Amended Complaint and would be sued in all forthcoming legal actions and also
give formal notice that Apple was infringing on Plaintiff’s Patent Suspended/Pending
technologies and that he should immediately notify Apple shareholders of their liabilities
or Plaintiff would be forced to notify the SEC and others of their failure to account
properly for liabilities under FASB and more. Finally, Plaintiff notified Dowling that he
was now absolutely aware of the lingering liabilities over a decade of use of Plaintiff’s
technologies after reviewing the contents of www.stevedowling,com that he was
attempting to purchase from Plaintiff.

102. That Plaintiff than began a series of follow up emails with Dowling and Sewell to
negotiate a possible license deal with Apple that would settle the infringement and
remove them from the civil RICO action and future legal actions and thereby avoid the
necessity of reporting these major liabilities to their shareholders and others.

103. That Plaintiff copied Grinage in these email communications with Apple, as this was a
standard of practice in order to keep Grinage up to speed regarding the ongoing
communications and negotiations as she had requested. Grinage, a copied recipient on
the emails from Plaintiff then suddenly and for unknown reasons began a campaign to
sabotage and defame both Plaintiff and Cox in the ongoing negotiations with APPLE
executives that were crucial to iViewit companies investors and iViewit companies
inventors, derailing possible settlement talks regarding the issues contained in these 75
confidential emails by suddenly interjecting herself into the negotiations fraught with
allegations of criminal acts by Plaintiff and Cox.

104. That Plaintiff also copied in this series of email communications investigative blogger
Cox, who had been reporting on the iViewit story for 3 years and had posted a blog on
the website , notifying Dowling of the liabilities associated with
Sewell and Apple.

105. That Grinage then suddenly and without warning began replying to the copied recipients
in a massive breach of contract and without conference with Plaintiff or Cox prior. These
replies by Grinage to those same Apple executives, attorneys and officials involved in
this confidential legal communication attacked, defamed, and discredited Plaintiff and
Cox, stating that they were running an extortion plot against Apple executives and others
and other defamatory and slanderous accusations. Accusations that suddenly turn up in a
number of the legal process abuse cases cited herein.

106. That after this series of events Plaintiff immediately ceased working with Grinage who
then sought retaliation by conspiring further against Plaintiff and Cox with Defendant
Randazza to further defame and harass Plaintiff and Cox through broadcasted messages
making wild allegations of criminal activity against Plaintiff, again allegations that have
no factual basis.

107. Cox named Grinage in her counter complaint filed in Randazza v. Cox (District of
Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL) that was dismissed by that Court without
proper adjudication, despite Grinage accepting service and preparing to answer the 76
complaint as Grinage had sent notice to Cox and all those involved in Randazza v. Cox,
except of course Plaintiff, of her anticipated response and counter response to Cox’s filed
counter complaint. Grinage also sent certified motions to the District of Nevada Court of
Judge Navarro, to enter into the case and thereby proving her acceptance of service in
that lawsuit.

However and suspiciously, this motion by Grinage and the accompanying
documents she filed were never placed on the Randazza v. Cox docket or entered into the
record, in fact, Grinage was not even entered as Counter Defendant in the docket or case.
Immediately after Grinage’s filings Judge Navarro dismissed Cox's counter complaint all
together, denying her the right to counter sue and denying Grinage’s right to answer.
108. Cox then named Grinage as a defendant in a new suit that Cox was ordered by Navarro to
file in substitute of the denied counter complaint, alleging that Grinage is acting in
conspiracy to defame and harass Plaintiff and Cox with other defendants named in her
RICO and this RICO.

00297‐JCM‐VCF CHANGED TO 2:13‐CV‐00297 JCM (NJK)

109. That on February 24th 2013, Cox filed District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-MMD-VCF.
That this lawsuit is related to the lawsuit above in Nevada as it acts as Cox’s counter complaint in that lawsuit, yet Cox was prohibited from filing a counter complaint in that
lawsuit and Ordered by the judge to file as a separate action?

110. That many of the defendants in that case are again the same as those in this RICO
lawsuit, including but not limited to (bolded names are common defendants); AOL Inc.,
APPLE, David S. Aman, Mark Bennett, Sean Boushie , MT, David W. Brown, Brown,
White and Newhouse Law Firm, Martin Cain, John Calkins, David Carr, Bernie Cassidy
MT, Doug Chey, Tracy L. Coenen, Corbin Fisher, Jennifer DeWolf Paine, Steve
Dowling, Diana Duke, Dylan Energy, Royce Engstrom , MT, Allen Fagin, Forbes Inc.,
Free Speech Coalition, Bob Garfield, Godaddy Inc., Ronald D. Green, Greenberg
Traurig Law Firm,

Scott H Greenfield, Jessica Griffin, Roxanne Grinage, Taylor Kai Groenke MT, Francis Gurry, Judge Marco Hernandez, Kashmir Hill, HireLyrics, Intel Corp., Jason Jones, Edward KWAKWA, Stephen P. Lamont [P. Stephen Lamont], Joseph Lecesse, Liberty Capital, Liberty Interactive, Liberty Media Holdings, John C. Malone, Manwin Business Corporation, Greggory Mashberg, Proskauer Rose, NY, Douglas Melamed, Peter L. Michaelson, Carlos Miller, Mobile Streams Inc., Michael
Morgan, Motorola Mobility Inc., Motorola Solutions Inc., Multnomah County Sheriffs
Office, Leo M. Mulvihill, Mulvihill & Rushie LLC, NPR New York Public Radio,

Judge Gloria M. Navarro, New York Times , NY, Obsidian Finance Group, Oregon State Bar
Bulletin, ..., Bob Parsons , AZ, Philly Law Blog,,
Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Marc J. Randazza , NV, Randazza Legal Group, Janine
Robben, Steven Rodgers, Marshall Ross, Kenneth Rubenstein, Jordan Rushie, Bret 78
Sewell, Bruce Sewell, Daniel Staton, Synaptics, Time Warner Cable Inc., Time
Warner Inc., Sean Tompkins, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Matthew M. Triggs, Eric
Turkewitz, Turkewitz Law Firm, University of Montana, Tim Vawter, Mark Vena,
WIPO, David Wang, Kenneth P. White, Michael Whiteacre, Eric Wilbers, Steven Wilker
and XBIZ"

111. That in effort to suppress Cox’s right to file a counter complaint, knowing of her
impoverished condition, a condition wholly caused from these Abuse of Process Lawsuits
filed to Harass and Defame her and strip her of her sites that expose the Criminal Cartel
and force her to bankruptcy through judgments garnered through Fraud on that Court.
Judge Gloria Navarro even has issued a ruling that Cox had to file a brand new lawsuit
for the counter complaint.

The legal rationale for this Order was that Cox’s counter complaint addressed the ongoing conspiracy against Cox due to her publications in relation to the Anderson lawsuit and this RICO lawsuit. It should be noted here that there are an overabundance of related Defendants in both of Cox’s cases and Cox provides excellent linkage for this Court to determine exactly who and how they have related to conspire against her rights, through almost identical Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of
Process as described in the Anderson lawsuit and the legally related to Anderson
lawsuits. That this lawsuit filed by Cox and all pleadings, orders, exhibits, etc. rendered
are hereby by reference incorporated in entirety herein.


112. That defendant in this lawsuit Kashmir Hill, Forbes, New York Times, WIPO, Peter L.
Michaelson, and all defendants of Northern California Case 4:13-cv-02046-DMR
conspired to suppress information that investigative Blogger Cox had been reporting on. 

113. That the defendants in this lawsuit violated anti-trust laws and are creating a media
monopoly that is violating the lawful and constitutional rights of Plaintiff and Cox.

114. That WIPO Panelist Michaelson posted unprivileged defamatory statements in an
international WIPO complaint in regard to Cox being guilty of the crime of Extortion and
that the man she was reporting on, Plaintiff, was also guilty of the crime of Extortion.
Neither, Plaintiff nor Cox had been under investigation of extortion, on trial for extortion
or convicted of extortion.

115. That defendant in this lawsuit Randazza, Cox's ex-Attorney conspired with others to
harass, defame and discredit Cox and the iViewit Story of which she was reporting on
when Randazza sued her and Plaintiff (without proper notice), and acted in conspiracy 
with Las Vegas Judge Navarro, WIPO and Godaddy to shut down massive blogs / online
media owned by Cox and Plaintiff.

116. That defendants in this lawsuit conspired to STOP the flow of information and violate
Cox's First Amendment Rights in order to suppress information regarding the Inventor
Eliot Bernstein’s iViewit Technology Story.


117. That allegedly Oregon attorney in this lawsuit defendant .. told defendant Forbes
reporter defendant Kashmir Hill that Cox had been under investigation by the Oregon
Attorney General, Forbes published this false and defamatory statement to third parties
concerning Cox and caused Cox Harm.

118. That defendant in this lawsuit ... told defendant Forbes reporter defendant Kashmir
Hill that Cox was guilty of extortion, and had extorted him. COX had not been on trial
for extortion nor under investigation for extortion. Defendant Forbes reporter defendant
Kashmir Hill published this false and defamatory statement to third parties concerning
Cox and caused Cox Harm.

119. That defendant in this lawsuit Randazza widely published that Cox was guilty of
extortion as did other defendants of the District of Arizona CASE #: 2:13-cv-00962-
MEA, and this has caused irreparable damage to COX.

120. That defendant in this lawsuit Randazza filed a WIPO complaint to defendant WIPO,
whereby defendant Michaelson was the SOLE Panelist in this matter. Defendant
Randazza filed this complaint against Cox and Plaintiff. Randazza accused Cox and
Plaintiff of the crime of extortion. Michaelson then constructed this as fact, along with
the false and defamatory statements of Forbes reporter Kashmir Hill.

121. That Michaelson published false and defamatory statements regarding Cox in a WIPO
decision regarding domain names. Michaelson accused COX and Plaintiff of the crime of
extortion in this international publication through WIPO.

122. Michaelson and Randazza have caused Cox and Plaintiff irreparable harm and are liable 
for damages caused to Plaintiff. 

Randazza had told members that he represented Cox in the matter of her appeal, and so they stayed away. Randazza's negotiation was exposed by UCLA professor Eugene Volokh to Cox, and Volokh has become Cox's counsel, retained under contract with Mayer Brown for her appeal.

57. That upon my knowledge, information and belief, in retaliation, early in 2012, Porn
Industry Attorney Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, conspired with Attorney
Aman, to set Crystal Cox up for the crime of extortion. Aman initiated this defamatory
campaign with an email out of context to the New York Times that was one email out of
5 in a settlement negotiation with Cox.

... Randazza conspired to discredit and defame Cox and together convinced Judge Hernandez, and from there the world through Big Media and legal bloggers, that Cox had extorted them, though no extortion complaint was ever filed against her or Plaintiff and where once again, Plaintiff is inserted into the decisions accusing him and defaming him in the process now of extortion and more. "

Click Link Below to Read the Full Motion and Source of this post

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

"Troll Down: The Fight Against Big Porn and their Legal Trolls" ; Kenneth P. White of and Brown of White & Newhouse LLP

For Some Reason Brown of White & Newhouse LLP is very interested in this today. Someone even emailed them a link to my blog that talked about it 2 years ago. So what's up Brown of White & Newhouse LLP and Kenneth P. White of ? What don't you like about this online article?

"Kenneth White: Defender of Logs, Grade A Hypocrite

Ken White is another mafia-funded Big Porn goon who is the co-counsel to Marc Randazza (If Randazza is Tony Soprano, think of Ken as Salvatore Bonpensiero).

He notably engages in hypocritical behaviors which consist of, but are not limited to:

1. Calling out Crystal Cox for attacking Marc Randazza as a parent – and then doing the same thing to Chance Trahan.

2. An ‘offensive’ website that publishes images of real women naked is scum, but a bunch of ‘offensive’ logs, coal and dirt constitutes ‘art’.

3.  Marc Randazza’s defense of Manwin and Porn Valley in numerous civil cases is “first amendment protection”, but posting amateur pictures of real adults (who were not paid any money) is obviously terrible!

4.  Accusing us of profiting from people’s pain and suffering (which really is completely and entirely untrue to begin with, but I’ll roll with your premise as a hypothetical), when you work as a lawyer. Without pain and suffering, you have no clients. It’s perfectly okay for you to get paid to heal them, but when we do it, it’s terrible and wrong? Come off it. Those people transmit their pictures via the public internet.

5. Out of all the Latin phrases you could’ve picked, yours is the most homosexual in nature (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course) – the ram touches the wall? From the era of the Greeks and Romans? I’m awaiting for you and Randazza to announce that you will be coming out of the closet any second, Ken.  Be it as you have chosen “murum aries attigit” – I will choose the only valid response. Sic semper tyrannis.

6.  I don’t live my life with regrets. Apparently, you do. Your 6th major mistake is the idea that I have to explain anything about MY LIFE to anyone. How do you justify your background in representing the mafia, porn valley, and drug money? Perhaps you should show your children some of the films made by the people that you and Mr. Randazza have represented (which are far more hardcore than anything on our website), hand them an 8-ball and tell them to take a hit, or show them pictures of people who were killed by the mob or street gangs.

7. There is no moral high ground in this battle, and yet you still cling to your false moralism. Obviously, you’ve never done anything that would morally offend anyone, in your entire life. Not only are you a lawyer, you’re a saint, which explains all of the Catholic imagery on your website. And yet, I don’t see a single endorsement from any bishops, priests, dioceses, archdioceses, cardinals, patriarchs, etc. I fully believe that the papacy should also sue you, but unlike you, they’re actually doing the work of God, and thus are too busy to work for the Porn Valley mafia.

8. Either you still have that outdated belief of people as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ OR, more than likely, you’re playing on the naivete of the commoners again. How can you use a phrase from Antony as your motto – and then lecture me about good and evil? You’re a jaded cynic, just like me, and you’re fueled by money. You’d do anything or say anything to win. There’s no morality here. This is a dogfight.

9. We will teach our children not to take naked pictures of themselves, of course. Not to trust scumbag lawyers, not to live in a dump like California or Nevada.  Not to do drugs, and not to waste their lives. However, we’re also going to teach them everything we know about the world – your sons and daughters will contend with ours, for all eternity. Right? Wrong? Admirable? To who? At the end of the day, all of the morals in the world don’t fill stomachs, they don’t build homes, they don’t save lives. If you want to make an omelette, you must crack a few eggs. You know this as well as I do – it fits your modus operandi as much as it does mine. Jesus wandered in the desert and lived in complete poverty – I’m not much for that, sorry. Perhaps I’d believe you if you donated all of your earnings to a good cause, like, say, Hurricane Sandy, and lived out the rest of your life in a monastery. Some days, I think about it myself.

10.  You’ve continually stated the idea that our website is based on cruelty and abuse or some sort of revenge. Hunter Moore’s was. Eric Chanson’s is. Our website is not. It’s solely about the profit. We post people’s naked pictures for advertising revenue.

Not only is it not fun (looking at a bunch of naked people that I really have no attraction to – including many images of men), it’s time-consuming (administrating a server, as well as hours of behind-the-scenes work to make sure the ship stays afloat). I tried for years, and years, and years – to build any kind of successful business – and you are right, I was not good at it. I failed as a musician, as a karaoke builder/host, I failed as a writer, I failed as a salesman, I failed at a great many things. And now that I’ve achieved some margin of success, the competition wants to take that success away from me.

Finally, after 28 years of life, I have a real business that makes me money, I might actually be able to afford to have my teeth fixed, to deal with my countless health issues (including migraines, panic attacks and somatic disorder), I might actually be able to afford food and shelter of my own instead of being dependent. And you, who have lived high on the lamb for decades, don’t like the idea that I might actually get out from below the poverty line, because I’m taking that money from your employers in Porn Valley.

You know what Randazza offered me? $2,500. For the first successful business that I’ve ever built in my naturally born life. I told him, if the number was right, I’d gladly shut down the website and never look back – but you know, as a high-priced porn valley lawyer, that $2,500 is nothing. You can’t feed a family with that money.

Here’s an idea. If you’ve got 40 people on your side, and you all offer me $2,500 each, I’ll shut all of it down. ($2,500 x 40 = $100,000). I would then take the money, purchase a business that has nothing to do with porn (like a restaurant or a bar) and live out the rest of my days working at that gig. In fact, that’s actually the plan with our website now – once I make enough money, I can purchase the businesses I really want to own. It’s SOLELY about money, not revenge or cruelty or anything else.

11. The idea that our site picks on women. For one, that’s entirely false. You managed to pick a few abusive comments, but the majority of the comments on our website are actually compliments from appreciative viewers. In fact, the only reason that most people want to be removed from the website is that their employers are deciding to terminate them from their jobs in a lot of cases.

THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU SHOULD BE GOING AFTER. A boss who fires someone because of naked pictures on the internet. A general public that frowns upon nudity and open expression of sexuality.

For two, there’s a lot of men pictured on our website as well. That should tell you that our website is equal opportunity. So, rather than suggesting we’re bullying women, why don’t you tell the people the truth about the men that are posted on our site (or do you not care about them because they don’t fall into your ‘misogyny’ angle)? Furthermore, your associates have found naked pictures of me.

You can’t portray me as someone who would ‘not like it if someone did this to them’ because I’ve had it done to me.  It hurt – for about 3 days. Then they stopped caring and moved on. Which leads me to…

12. Eventually you and Randazza will stop caring and move on as well. There’s nothing you can do. We’re not doing anything illegal. Your employers paid you for a witch hunt.

Tell Marc Randazza to reveal who is really paying him for this – it’s probably his good buddies at Manwin. Same with you, Ken – reveal your clients instead of standing up the ‘victims’ for permanent ridicule from a frivolous lawsuit.   You’re using them on behalf of Big Porn/Porn Valley.

13. I’m not a racist, sexist, misogynist, or anything else. That would imply I specifically target people of a certain background. I’m a misanthrope, who doesn’t like people in general. I have good reason to hate people for no reason at all. I only make exceptions to the general rule (my family and a few close friends, like Chance). Everyone else? They never helped me.

Why should I feel bad about what they’ve done to themselves? I’ve turned it into a successful business. Kudos to me. You, on the other hand, are Catholic. Do the words ‘Holy Roman Empire’ mean anything to you? What about ‘Spanish Inquisition’? ‘The Crusades’?  Exactly, it’s okay when you and your people do things like that, but God forbid that I make money off of naked pictures!

14.  Posting old pictures of me and stuff I did years ago. You don’t post pictures of yourself when you were 19, Ken. All of that stuff is old. When you examine it in depth, you’re forced to realize that it’s not 2002, it’s not 2003, it’s not 2004 or 2005. It’s 2012. Rather than suggesting that I was just a born villain – why not take a look at what I gave up to get what I have? I’ve never had a decent job or a decent girlfriend in my entire life.

Now, I have a decent business – which obviously has to be illegal in your opinion, even though people have been doing what I do for years, and I’m not the first, and I won’t be the last, which generally means that the precedent is on my side, and that all of this is legal and legit – and you wonder why I’m upset? Nonsense.

You’re getting paid by Porn Valley to target me. This isn’t about your moral convictions or some higher ground, this is a dogfight, it’s a battle between sharks, there’s no good or evil here, it’s just the scumbags on our team versus the scumbags on yours. I’m not holier-than-thou about it, and you shouldn’t be either.

You send a shark to face another shark, a wolf for a wolf, a tiger for a tiger. You have the same mindset as the majority of the USA (and the world, for that matter) – you want to get something done, but you don’t want to get your hands dirty. How lazy and naive. And yet you accuse me of entitlement, I’ll assure you there’s none of that here. Nobody owes me anything. What I do is hard. It hurts on the inside, and on the outside. Massive amounts of stress and lost sleep. Unending pain and further loss of hope for humanity than I ever thought was possible.

These people do it to themselves – they are not sweet, innocent people looking for relationships, they’re looking for casual sex. A lot of them are already married. What does the Catholic church say about being married, and then looking for threesomes or casual sex on Craigslist? Sending naked pictures to total strangers, often in the first email, or outright posting them on the ad itself? I assure you that every one pictured on our website posted all of that information publicly, and thus consented from the very start. If you did not want people to see your naked pictures, you would not take them, or at the very least you would not send them.

Here’s to a glorious battle between two teams of great sharks – Is Anybody Down, Craig Brittain, Chance Trahan, Crystal Cox, Monica Foster, our legal team, all independent small business owners, all true defenders of free speech and expression, all proud citizens of the USA, anyone who isn’t voting for Obama, our friends and supporters, everyone who has submitted content to our website, everyone who loves our website, vs. Porn Valley, organized crime, Randazza Legal, Ken White, Adam Steinbaugh or whoever else you can dig up, the fall guys/girls that have to have their names listed on whatever frivolous suit you file, the liberal left, the religious extremists, and all of the people who want us to starve so we can’t feed, clothe or shelter ourselves or our families.

We are proud of what we do. If we didn’t, someone else would – we’re the very best at it. Hunter Moore won’t build a new website, and no one has any interest in Eric Chanson.

We will not falter nor surrender. Nemo me impune lacessit."


Monday, November 17, 2014

Alexandra Mayers, Monica Foster on Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group; Marc Randazza SUED Monica Foster to SEEK Revenge. Jennifer Randazza has NO Trademark. Monica Foster has First Amendment Rights over her ART. Yet the EVIL Lawless Randazza's SUED Monica Foster for Trademark Infringement and Defamation Issues. Violent Videos Games, Art, and Parody have First Amendment Rights; well for everyone UNLESS they are making fun of, making ART or Parody of the RANDAZZA's that is.

It is CLEAR that Monica Foster's First Amendment Rights TRUMP any claim that Jennifer Randazza, PROXY, for Asshole Husband Marc Randazza, may have against media genius, professional artist, investigative blogger, porn insider and parody creator Monica Foster.

For more on Court Cases on this Topic, Check out the Link Below

I wish that an attorney would represent Monica Foster and counter Sue the Randazza Assholes for BILLIONS, as clearly they knowingly, willfully and wanton SUED this woman outside of the LAW that they know well and are experts in. And they knew they were in the wrong. Another words they did this with "willful and wanton" deliberate intention and they are Financially Liable for Defaming, Harassing, and violating the rights of Monica Foster.

The Randazza's AGAIN abuse court power and process to create victims, to TARGET those who stand up to their tyranny and abuses of the legal process. This is CLEARLY unconstitutional. And guess what, they don't care. You see, you don't want to make and Enemy of a RANDAZZA, or do you? Well I sure did and do, after all I am Crystal Cox SWORN Enemy of Fucktard Marc Randazza, after all.

Hypocritical Asshole Marc Randazza and Lying Slut Jennifer Randazza did this to defame her, traffic her, violate her, stalk her, suppress her speech, violate her human and civil rights and they did so knowing full well that her ART, her PARODY is protected under law and the U.S. Constitution. 

Who can really STOP the Evil Reign of Randazza? 
Well perhaps only God. 
We shall see.

Here are some links on the clear FACT that Monica Foster's art creations and parody are protected under the First Amendment as Mr. Rabid Riddler Randazza and his hypocritical Evil law firm Randazza Legal Group KNOW well, as they are EXPERTS in this area of Law, ALLEGEDLY.

"Easter 2014 - Debt Bondage, Sex Trafficking, Randazza Legal Group & the Porn Industry"


STOP the EVIL Tyranny of Marc Randazza and his Groupies. 

Expose Marc Randazza and his alleged Civil Conspirators I call "the Randazza Legal Groupies" or the Clusterfuck federation of court manipulating fucktards.

STOP Breaking the Law Randazza

Do the Right Thing !!!