Attorney Marc Randazza - Nevada Bar Complaint Marc Randazza - Randazza Legal Group

Nevada Bar Complaint Marc Randazza - Randazza Legal Group

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZxTmp7zZ7HcNaOXXZYoNyTaEH9uuh0bPUUuzMgSQ8uk/edit

Marc Randazza Defamatory, False Statement, Fraud on the Court Lawsuit Against his former client Crystal Cox; Randazza et al v. Cox et al - District of Nevada SLAPP Lawsuit against Blogger Crystal Cox to Chill Her Speech, Steal her Blogs and internet placement and harass her and those she reports on.

15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Attorney Marc Randazza uses his power in the courts to file a defaming, flat out lying legal action against his former client AND then use those files to file other legal actions, complaints and a worldwide defamatory campaign.

Nevada SLAPP Suit to Chill the Speech of Blogger Crystal Cox, Speaking CRITICAL of asshole, rogue, lawless attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group.

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

Defendant Crystal Cox's Affirmative Defense in the ALLEGATIONS against her by her her former attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.268.0.pdf

First Amendment Trumps Trademark Law, Randazza should have known that.

Trademark Law should NOT be used to TRAMPLE First Amendment Rights
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.268.0.pdf

Attorney Marc Randazza claims to the courts that he did not represent Crystal Cox, yet he discussed the case with attorney Eugene Volokh and claimed to be representing me, and even discussed filing motions and get court transcripts in moving forward.

Eugene eMail to Cox
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.263.0.pdf

eMail between Cox, Volokh and Randazza, Clearly showing that Randazza and Volokh were acting as Cox's attorney and discussing court motions and transcripts moving forward, and keeping the client, me, in the loop.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.258.0.pdf


Marc Randazza  of Randazza Legal Group lied to the world deliberately painting Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein to be criminals, felony extortionist. Yet clearly as seen below Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group did not, himself believe he was being EXTORTED in any way, but that Cox was only asking for a job, and being unreasonable in his opinion.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.261.0.pdf


Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group agrees to represent Crystal Cox, yet LIES in sworn statements to the court that he did indeed represent me.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.259.0.pdf


Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group 

Motion for Unconstitional TRO without First Amendment Adjudication, with attached hearsay as exhibits and Judge Gloria Navarro said OK, and gave Randazza massive online content..

in complete violation of the First Amendment Rights of Eliot Bernstein and Crystal Cox.

Motion for TRO, Full of Flat out Lies and Defamatory Yammer
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.2.0.pdf


Ex Parte Motion FULL of Defamatory LIES
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.6.0.pdf


Unconstitutional, Unethical ORDER granting Marc Randazza, and Randazza Legal Group domain names, blogs and sites that spoke critical of them. Non-Commercial sites with blog names that were CLEARLY, without a doubt GRIPE SITES.
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.14.0.pdf

Even if Attorney Marc Randazza still somehow believes he was not acting as Crystal Cox's attorney nor owes Crystal Cox some form of "DUTY" as her attorney. Then surely Marc Randazza knows that Cox was a "potential client" at the very least.

In this eMail from Marc Randazza to his client, or potential client Crystal Cox, he clearly says that Cox is a potential client or an actual client, so either way doesn't Randazza owe Crystal Cox the duty to not use her private emails, not testify in court against her, not file a hateful Amicus Brief that lies to the Ninth Circuit, not lie to the world that Cox extorted him and somehow attacked his infant child? Marc Randazza completely violated all laws and ethics in regard to Crystal Cox and to anyone with a brain and the ability to read that point is CLEAR, Blatant and Obvious.

eMail, (note potential or actual client)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiY00tM3lidGw0M2M/edit

''  Rule 1.18.  Duties to Prospective Client.

      (a) A person who discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.

      (b) Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.

      (c) A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter, except as provided in paragraph (d). If a lawyer is disqualified from representation under this paragraph, no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d).

      (d) When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined in paragraph (c), representation is permissible if:

             (1) Both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, confirmed in writing, or:

             (2) The lawyer who received the information took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client; and

                   (i) The disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
                   (ii) Written notice is promptly given to the prospective client.

      (e) A person who communicates information to a lawyer without any reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to discuss the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship, or for purposes which do not include a good faith intention to retain the lawyer in the subject matter of the consultation, is not a “prospective client” within the meaning of this Rule.

      (f) A lawyer may condition conversations with a prospective client on the person’s informed consent that no information disclosed during the consultation will prohibit the lawyer from representing a different client in the matter. If the agreement expressly so provides, the prospective client may also consent to the lawyer’s subsequent use of information received from the prospective client.

      (g) Whenever a prospective client shall request information regarding a lawyer or law firm for the purpose of making a decision regarding employment of the lawyer or law firm:

             (1) The lawyer or law firm shall promptly furnish (by mail if requested) the written information described in Rule 1.4(c).

             (2) The lawyer or law firm may furnish such additional factual information regarding the lawyer or law firm deemed valuable to assist the client.

             (3) If the information furnished to the client includes a fee contract, the top of each page of the contract shall be marked “SAMPLE” in red ink in a type size one size larger than the largest type used in the contract and the words “DO NOT SIGN” shall appear on the client signature line.''

Below is the Motion in Limine Crystal Cox filed in her counterclaims suing Randazza for Malpractice, as he used partial email threads (private emails) to defame his former client, he boldly embarked on massive defamation claims against Crystal Cox and flat out lied in media and the courts that Cox had extorted him, though he clearly knew Cox was only asking for a job, as Exhibit 17 clearly shows.

Here is the eMails that clearly SHOW Marc Randazza LIED to the WORLD about Crystal Cox when he knew Cox was just asking him for a Job.  He deliberately painted his former client out to be a criminal, in total disregard of her civil rights, rights as his client or potential client and her constitutional rights.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiY00tM3lidGw0M2M/edit

Motion in Limine to Include Exhibit 20 showing that Randazza and Volokh were acting as Cox's attorney or at the VERY least, her potential attorneys.

http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.258.0.pdf

Marc Randazza and Eugene Volokh, clearly discussing and acting as Blogger Crystal Cox's attorney... Yet, Marc Randazza claims he was not her attorney. Well if NOT then how about ''potential''. Marc Randazza is NOT above the LAW, though he thinks he is.

Exhibit 20 proves that Marc Randazza and Eugene Volokh were acting as Cox's attorney. They were ordering documents from the courts, discussing filing motions on Crystal Cox's (the client) behalf , they had phone discussions on the best strategy to proceed in Cox's case and all this allegedly in the best interest of the CLIENT, Crystal Cox.

Marc Randazza acted as Cox's attorney, even if RANDAZZA prevails in court as to his lies / claims that he was not Cox's attorney, then at the absolute, very least blogger Crystal Cox was a potential client is still owed duties under law.

''  Rule 1.18.  Duties to Prospective Client.

      (a) A person who discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.

      (b) Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.

      (c) A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter, except as provided in paragraph (d). If a lawyer is disqualified from representation under this paragraph, no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d).

      (d) When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined in paragraph (c), representation is permissible if:

             (1) Both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, confirmed in writing, or:

             (2) The lawyer who received the information took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client; and

                   (i) The disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
                   (ii) Written notice is promptly given to the prospective client.

      (e) A person who communicates information to a lawyer without any reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to discuss the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship, or for purposes which do not include a good faith intention to retain the lawyer in the subject matter of the consultation, is not a “prospective client” within the meaning of this Rule.

      (f) A lawyer may condition conversations with a prospective client on the person’s informed consent that no information disclosed during the consultation will prohibit the lawyer from representing a different client in the matter. If the agreement expressly so provides, the prospective client may also consent to the lawyer’s subsequent use of information received from the prospective client.

      (g) Whenever a prospective client shall request information regarding a lawyer or law firm for the purpose of making a decision regarding employment of the lawyer or law firm:

             (1) The lawyer or law firm shall promptly furnish (by mail if requested) the written information described in Rule 1.4(c).

             (2) The lawyer or law firm may furnish such additional factual information regarding the lawyer or law firm deemed valuable to assist the client.

             (3) If the information furnished to the client includes a fee contract, the top of each page of the contract shall be marked “SAMPLE” in red ink in a type size one size larger than the largest type used in the contract and the words “DO NOT SIGN” shall appear on the client signature line.''

Below is the Motion in Limine Crystal Cox filed in her counterclaims suing Randazza for Malpractice, as he used partial email threads (private emails) to defame his former client, he boldly embarked on massive defamation claims against Crystal Cox and flat out lied in media and the courts that Cox had extorted him, though he clearly knew Cox was only asking for a job, as Exhibit 17 clearly shows.

Here is the eMails that clearly SHOW Marc Randazza LIED to the WORLD about Crystal Cox when he knew Cox was just asking him for a Job.  He deliberately painted his former client out to be a criminal, in total disregard of her civil rights, rights as his client or potential client and her constitutional rights.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiY00tM3lidGw0M2M/edit

Motion in Limine to Include Exhibit 20 showing that Randazza and Volokh were acting as Cox's attorney or at the VERY least, her potential attorneys.

http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.258.0.pdf

Crystal Cox Counterclaims, Declaration of Facts in Randazza vs. Cox District of Nevada.

Document 254, Randazza v. Cox;

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL

CRYSTAL L. COX,

Defendant, Counter Plaintiff

v.

MARC J. RANDAZZA,

Plaintiffs, Counter Defendant

                                                                         Declaration / Statement of Facts / Testimony

On or about December 10th, 2011, one of my Bloggers on my Independent Blog Network, contacted me regarding his contacting an attorney named Marc Randazza. (See Exhibit 18)

I had just lost a major free speech case ( Obsidian Finance Group vs. Cox) and he thought Marc Randazza would be a good fit, and may represent me for Free, as he had just had some TSA case in the media.

I had never heard of attorney Marc Randazza, however, I agreed to have a 3 way phone conversation regarding the possibility of me agreeing to allow Mr. Randazza to represent me, in what had quickly become my high profile First Amendment Case. (see Exhibit 18 to show the initial conversation regarding scheduling a conference call, sending court documents.)

On December 6th, 2011 I had previously spoke to UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh. He called me and asked if he could represent me on my Appeal of Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox and with absolutely no cost to me.

Eugene Volokh is a law professor and does not practice law regularly. So he had to get the final approval of the law firm Mayer Brown LLP. Therefore I had not had firm representation yet from him when I spoke with Marc Randazza. And was open to both or either of them representing me on my Ninth Circuit Appeal, at that time.

On my representation conference call with Marc Randazza, we discussed my strategy for my appeal, as well as my strengths and weaknesses and what I was willing to do and not willing to do.

Randazza told me I had made a mess of the case and he would have to look over all the documentation to decide if he would be able to take my case. Randazza told me that Big Media had a monopoly on Free Speech and that is just the way it is.

Randazza attempted to get me to not appeal, by telling me it was best for all of society if I did not appeal. Randazza asked me my strategy, what I was open to in moving forward, and what I was not. He questioned me on many aspects of my intentions for my appeal.

Randazza told me that he represented the Media Association for Bloggers and may have a conflict of interest in representing me, and that he would get back to me after I gave him all of the documents of my case and he checked with them.

As Exhibit 19 shows, on December 14th, 2011 Randazza confirmed his representation of Cox.

On December 15th, As Exhibit 20 shows, Randazza and Volokh were working with, and keeping Cox in the loop on their representation and the case strategy. They were discussing ordering court documents and had phone calls discussion how to best move forward with my case. They were both representing Cox at that time and in talks about the case with the courts, other attorney and Cox.

Thereafter, it came to my attention that Randazza had contacted attorney David Aman, the opposition in my case, and was negotiating a deal that would stop my appeal and somehow change the status of the judgement .  Eugene Volokh told me this in a phone call and as you see in emails of Dec. 15th, 2011, in Exhibit 1. 

Also in Exhibit 1 and that phone call Eugene Volokh told Cox that Randazza was disccussing, with other First Amendment bar attorneys that he represented Cox and was trying to broker a deal.

I had no knowledge of the details of this negotiation, nor any terms of it and Randazza did not have my permission to present a deal of any kind yet. Especially one without me knowing the detail.

As seen in Exhibit 21, On December 16th 2011 at 9:21 am, I fired Randazza. I told him he does not represent me and that only Eugene Volokh represents me.

Also seen in Exhibit 21,  On December 16th 2011 at 12:55 PM Randazza says he has no issue with me doing that and offers to help me in the future in anyway he can.

Exhibit 21 shows that Marc respect Cox, apologized if I felt not treated well and said that

"People like you are important for the future of citizen journalism, and I wish to see you succeed."

It shows he lied about representation. and admits to trying to broker a deal on Cox's behalf, which is the very definition of "representation.  Exhibit 21 shows Randazza saying, "I did tell the opposing counsel that I thought a deal might be brokered".

Exhibit 21 shows Randazza saying, "Despite the contents of this email, I wish to let you know that I am sill willing to lend a hand in any way - even in the background."

Cox took her former client, who claimed to humbly respect her, apologize, say people like her were need, at his word. Cox truly believed that Randazza was sincere in letting him know if he could help, even in the background. Cox had lost her home, lost her income and needed a job, this was the help she needed. She simply asked Randazza if he knew anyone or would hire Cox for PR work and yet he maliciously, deliberately and knowing the truth painted to the world that Cox had extorted him.  Knowing full well that he did not believe this, he simply want to teach Cox a lesson, intimidate her and ruin her life.

In which he succeeded. He convinced the world Cox was a criminal who had attacked his infant daughter. This ruined Cox's family relationships, business, friendships, ability to rent a home and has left Cox desolate, homeless and unable to rent, to work or to secure clients.

As all exhibits show, Marc Randazza was acting as my attorney. He worked with others in this representation such as Eugene Volokh and the opposition David Aman.

Cox would have kept Randazza on with Volokh had he not lied to her, berated her, presented deals to the opposition without her permission or knowledge of what they were, in her 2.5 million dollar judgment and the appeal.

Randazza retaliated against his former client, and Exhibit 21 proves that he did so with intent, maliciously and after claiming, offering to be of any kind of help.

On January 16th, 2012 Cox emailed Randazza asking for a possible job or job recommendation. On January 17th Randazza emailed Cox back. See Exhibit 17.

Exhibit 17 shows that, though Randazza was upset that Cox registered the domain name he did not believe she had a reasonable or ethical right to own, he did not tell her he believed it was against the law, or extortion in any way.

Randazza is well known for defending the rights of others to have domain names with other people's names in it, such as the Glenn Beck case he was in.

I, Crystal Cox, had also won a WIPO case with the domain names of 3 Proskauer Rose attorneys in them and had one that case, therefore I had no reason to believe it would be an issue.

I, Crystal Cox, assumed he would have no issue with it, as I had read his legal arguments and thought, at the time he was a true proponent of Free Speech rights for all.

Exhibit 17 CLEARLY shows that Counter Defendant Marc Randazza did not have an issue with Cox asking him for a Job.

In fact Exhibit 17 shows clearly, without a doubt that Randazza did not believe he was being extorted, but that in fact, he believed Cox was unreasonable and unethical for registering the domain name, but that she was just asking for a job.

Exhibit 17 proves that Randazza, with full knowledge of it being false, interviewed and flat out lied, made false and defamatory statements to NPR, Forbes, the New York Times, WIPO, the Czech Courts, Tracy Coenen and the Fraud Files, Kenneth White attorney blogger of Popehat.com and numerous other well connected bloggers, and Media around the world.   As well as made these false and defamatory statement in courts and on his own blog. KNOWING full well that it was false.

RANDAZZA gave blogger attorney Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com Cox's personal, priviliged, private email to her former attorney who told her to let him know if he could help her in any way, and he used this email to paint Cox in false light, deliberately not posting the whole email thread which showed that he knew Cox was asking for a job.

Therefore because Cox would not simply turn over a domain name he thought she had no right to own, he went on NPR, interviewed with the New York Times, Forbes, Popehat.com, and he viciously, deliberately, knowing it was false, lied, made false statements to WIPO who used their global clout to ruin the lives of Eliot Bernstein and Crystal Cox and accuse them worldwide and nationwide, in legal blogs, in big and small media, that Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein ( who never was even in the email) had extorted him, which is a felony crime.

Cox is entitled to relief for the damage Randazza has caused her, though Cox has no attorney or way to articulate this evidence on a legal basis. Cox has valid claims and exhibit 17 further proves this.

Exhibit 17 shows that Randazza was "deeply offended" and that he did not think Cox was reasonable or ethical. However, Randazza clearly never claimed Cox was extorting him, nor did he believe this at the time. Yet later, in retaliation, he deliberately defamed Cox in a widespread, malicious, willful and wanton campaign of revenge, harassment, and widespread posting and speaking false and defamatory statements against Cox to third parties. This ruined Cox's life, quality of life and business. This also put Cox in constant danger, duress and up against massive, widespread hate in big and small media around the world.  And simply for registering a domain name and asking for a job.

Randazza has caused Cox irreparable damage.

Exhibit 17 shows Counter Defendant Marc Randazza Say, "Asking me for a job, or a recommendation?  That doesn't bother me in the least."  Yet because Cox did not do as he told her to, he retaliated and ruined her life. And told countless media that he was not only bothered by it but put in terror, stress and extreme duress over it. Which was untrue and Exhibit 17 shows this.

Approx. March 30th, 2012, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza began publishing false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox, attacking a 3 year old online. Defendant Kashmir Hill then interviewed, spoke with Counter Defendant Marc Randazza and published these same  false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox. (Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 8)

On April 2nd 2012, Defendant Kashmir Hill began  publishing false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox, attacking a 3 year old. Plaintiff Crystal Cox had no blog about a 3 year old, made no statements online about this three year old, yet Defendant Kashmir Hill knowingly posted false and defamatory information regarding Counter Plaintiff Cox.  (Exhibit 8)

Jordan Rushie, then of Mulvihill and Rushie LLC now an attorney with Randazza Legal Group, published false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Cox, in an article on Philly Law Blow, by Jordan Rushie, Titled " The Evolution of Crystal Cox: Anatomy of a Scammer", dated, April 3rd 2012.  Jordan Rushie posted false and defamatory statements regarding Cox being guilty of extortion and attacking a three year old.  (Exhibit 7 and 7a, and Exhibit 15)

On April 6th 2012, Bob Garfield interviewed  Counter Defendant Marc Randazza on Defendant wNYC,  New York Public Radio. The show was called “COMBATING "BAD" SPEECH WITH MORE SPEECH”, Dated, April 06, 2012. On the Media, as Exhibits show.  Bob Garfield and Counter Defendant Marc Randazza stated false and defamatory, slanderous statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox. Bob Garfield and Counter Defendant Marc Randazza accused Counter Plaintiff Cox of attacking a child online, of being guilty of extortion, and all manner of unethical and criminal activity. These  false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox in this world wide medium of communication has caused Counter Plaintiff Cox immeasurable, irreparable damage.  (Exhibit 4)

On Jun 18th 2012, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza filed a Czech court complaint against Counter Plaintiff Cox and Eliot Bernstein, to initiate a domain name dispute. In this case, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza stated false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox.  Counter Defendant Marc Randazza used Kashmir Hill, Jordan Rushie and David Carr’s false and defamatory statements as his evidence to steal the intellectual property of Counter Plaintiff Cox.

Essential using his own interviews with them as purported and believed evidence, though it was false and defamatory statements of fact with willful, wanton, deliberate and malicious intent.

On July 27th 2012, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza filed a WIPO complaint against Counter Plaintiff Cox and Eliot Bernstein, to initiate a domain name dispute. In this case, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza stated false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox.  Counter Defendant Marc Randazza use Kashmir Hill, Jordan Rushie and David Carr’s false and defamatory statements as his evidence to steal the intellectual property of Counter Plaintiff Cox. Counter Defendant Marc Randazza also stated to third party WIPO that Counter Plaintiff Cox was guilty of Extortion and had also extorted him, yet attorney Counter Defendant Marc Randazza had filed no criminal charges against Cox nor allowed her due process of law.  ( Exhibit 2)

As Exhibits 2-8 AND 10-16 show Big and Small Media as well as attorney bloggers, radio shows, international intellectual property law, legal publications, the associated press, small and large bloggers and publishers and more picked up the story or were directly told by Randazza false and defamatory statements and told to post his version of the facts, which, as Exhibits show, were clearly false and defamatory and with full knowledge of the law and their falsehood.

This has been written to the best of my knowledge and truest ability.

Cox seeks all allowable relief, as a matter of law for the damage Randazza has done to her.

Crystal L. Cox, Pro Se

Counter Plaintiff / Defendant

Certification of Service

On April 6 , 2015, Crystal Cox certifies mailing a copy of this to:

U.S. District Court

Clerk of Court

Room 1334

333 Las Vegas Blvd. S.

Las Vegas , NV 89101

Exhibit 18 Links
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1DaGsG-GTl0ct7yeBJBj-7jXm3_EByqwMiF8d6emzbkABfZVtAWmJbuK3AcO9J8qgUpps-mDVjfRnygFq/edit


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkibkxBTzhKWkp3U1k/edit


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiYksxQlVZM0pJU0U/edit



Exhibit 22
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiU29GUEZTR2ZycnM/edit


EXHIBIT - Randazza is deeply offended but knows Cox was asking for a job and not attempting to extort him.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiY00tM3lidGw0M2M/edit

My Personal Experience with Nevada Attorney Marc Randazza and the Randazza Legal Group Law Firm by Blogger Crystal Cox, Randazza's former client and target of a SLAPP suit he filed to silence me, steal my blogs, and suppress my First Amendment Rights.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.