http://ia801505.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854.83.0.pdf
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Friday, August 19, 2016
Clark County Nevada Judge Rob Bare completely discredits Randazza Legal Group’s key witness of civil case A-14-699072-C
"Randazza Legal Group named domestic violence assailant Ari Scott Bass aka Michael Whiteacre as their key witness for their April 2014 frivolous and fraudulent lawsuit filed by attorney Marc Randazza’s wife (Jennifer Randazza) against independent investigative blogger Alexandra Mayers (Clark county Civil court case A-14-699072-C).
The Clark County Nevada Judge assigned to the lawsuit is the honorable Judge Rob Bare.
Ironically, on March 7, 2014 a ruling by Judge Rob Bare completely discredited Ari Scott Bass aka Michael Whiteacre in a separate legal matter (which involves him physically assaulting his wife and sex trafficking victim – well known prostitute Christina Parreira).
That’s right – the only witness Randazza Legal Group was able to find to face Alexandra Mayers in a United States court of law, was no more than some loser porn industry fanboi who thought he could get away with physically assaulting his meal ticket (a woman he married and pimped repeatedly into to Dennis Hof’s brothels).
Way to go Randazza Legal Group…
’nuff said.
This matter came before the Court on January 20, 2016 and Court took matter under advisement. After carefully considering the papers submitted and hearing arguments, Court issued its Decision this 7th day of March, 2016. COURT ORDERED, Appellant’s conviction is AFFIRMED and REMANDED back to the lower court for any further proceedings. The standard of review on appeal challenging sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 250, 681 P.2d 44, 47 (1984). It is not the purview of this Court to weigh the evidence or to re-examine the credibility of witnesses. Lay v. State, 110 Nev. 1189, 1192, 886 P.2d 448, 450 (1994). In this case, this Court finds that after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found Appellant guilty. Specifically, the 911 call that the victim made the night of the incident was played and the victim told the dispatcher that, He grabbed me today, putting his hand around my neck, again, and threw me down on the floor. Additionally, Officer Miller observed that the victim had visible injuries in the form of redness and scratches on her right elbow and arm area. Furthermore, this Court will not reweigh the evidence or re-examine the credibility of witnesses. Therefore, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and Appellant’s conviction is affirmed. Counsel for Respondent is directed to submit a proposed Order consistent with the foregoing which sets forth the underpinnings of the same in accordance herewith and with counsel s briefing and argument. A Status Check Re: Order is set for May 4, 2016 in chambers. Parties need not appear. 5/4/16 (CHAMBERS) – STATUS CHECK RE.: ORDER CLERK’S NOTE: Counsel is to ensure a copy of the forgoing minute order is distributed to all interested parties; additionally, a copy of the foregoing minute order was distributed to the Service Recipients via the Wiznet E-Service (3/7/16 amn).
Clark County Nevada civil case C307132 (lower court case 14CR6277)"
Source
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Alexandra Mayers Clark County Nevada Court Filing; Jennifer Randazza / Randazza Legal Group. Ari Bass aKa Michael Whiteacre, Sean Tompkins, Mike South aKa Michael Strother, Marc Randazza.
Alexandra Mayers Reports; "Michael Strother / Mike South states WHO posed as Jennifer Randazza requesting my help, AFTER Marc Randazza offered legal services to Strother to sue me"
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
Bankruptcy Cry Baby Victim Marc Randazza. RANDAZZA has me, Crystal Cox the Biggest Creditor in this CASE, yet I have no Rights and my LAWSUIT against him, as my former attorney is simply FROZEN. Marc Randazza, attorney, has used the Nevada Bankruptcy courts as a tool to violate the rights of his former clients, and to STOP legal action again him.
"Debtor’s misguided criticisms of the IAA are an example of Debtor’s attempt to portray himself as a victim"
Source and Full Motion
http://ia801505.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854.155.0.pdf
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY CREDITORS EXCELSIOR MEDIA CORP., AND LIBERTY MEDIA
HOLDINGS, LLC TO DETERMINE NON-DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBTS
"III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Defendant Randazza is the former in-house General Counsel of E/L. Randazza was employed as E/L’s General Counsel continuously from June, 2009 until August 2012.
8. Excelsior is a sister company to various entities including Liberty and Corbin Fisher. Corbin Fisher is an on-line entertainment website and brand name whose intellectual
property is owned by Liberty. Excelsior is a film production company that creates videos for the Corbin Fisher brand.
E/L has consistently endeavored to and succeeded at conducting its business in a principled and professional manner. E/L relocated its headquarters from San Diego, California to Las Vegas in February 2011.
9. Randazza also relocated from San Diego, California to Las Vegas in 2011 to continue his employment relationship with E/L. Randazza markets himself as a “specialist” in First Amendment and intellectual property law, particularly with regard to the adult entertainment industry.
10. E/L and Randazza became acquainted while Randazza was an associate at a firm specializing in First Amendment related legal work in Florida. E/L later decided to hire a General Counsel. Randazza pursued and accepted the position. Randazza drafted an employment agreement, which was executed by the parties in June, 2009 (“Employment Agreement”).
Randazza at no time advise Plaintiffs that they should seek independent counsel to review the agreement even though Plaintiffs were obviously unrepresented. During the course of his
employment with E/L, Randazza was an integral part of E/L’s management and, along with several other executives, participated in making many of E/L’s major corporate decisions.
11. The primary reason E/L decided to hire a General Counsel was to ensure its intellectual property was protected. One of the most significant challenges faced by E/L and all companies in the film and entertainment industry is the illegal downloading and sharing of content/videos produced by E/L. However, Randazza was tasked with handling all of E/L’s legal matters.
A. THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
12. Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Randazza was to wind down his private practice during his first 90 days of employment and become E/L’s full-time General Counsel.
13. Section “6.C” of the Employment Agreement permitted Randazza to continue to provide professional services to a “limited number of outside clients” during non-working hours if such work did not present a conflict of interest for E/L. Contrary to his obligations under the Employment Agreement and without the knowledge of E/L, Randazza continued to aggressively grow his private practice during his employment after becoming E/L’s General Counsel.
14. Randazza’s compensation consisted of an annual salary of $208,000. Randazza also included in the Employment Agreement the unique arrangement of a nondiscretionary bonus of 25% of any settlement funds paid to E/L.
15. At the time of the execution of the Employment Agreement, the parties contemplated that Randazza would be handling all of E/L’s legal matters independently. Instead, Randazza began to utilize his own firm, Randazza Legal Group (“RLG”) and various outside counsel to assist in E/L’s legal matters.
16. The Employment Agreement also required that E/L provide Randazza with a laptop computer and PDA/phone, which were to be primarily used for E/L business with only occasional and incidental personal use permitted. The Employment Agreement further provided that such equipment was not to be used for professional services rendered to other clients.
17. The Employment Agreement provided for severance in the amount of 12 weeks of salary if E/L were to unilaterally terminate Randazza in the fourth year of employment or later.
There is no severance obligation if Randazza resigned or was terminated for cause.
18. The Employment Agreement also includes a governing law provision stating “[t]his Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of laws.” Randazza was able to reside virtually anywhere he wanted. Initially, Randazza lived and worked in San Diego, California. However, Randazza relocated to Las Vegas, Nevada in June 2011, just as few months after E/L relocated its headquarters.
19. At Randazza’s request, E/L hired Erika Dillon (“Dillon”), a paralegal. Dillon was employed by E/L as a paralegal at the time of Randazza’s resignation. Dillon left her employment after Randazza’s resignation at Randazza’s request B. ISSUES ARISE BETWEEN E/L AND RANDAZZA
i. Randazza’s Non-E/L Work
20. As noted above, under the Employment Agreement Randazza was obligated to wind down his private practice during the first 90 days of his employment with E/L.
21. After becoming E/L’s General Counsel, however, Randazza kept adding clients to his practice, RLG, and over the period from October 2009 through August 2012, he billed over 1,643 hours to clients for work unrelated to E/L (and not including pro bono work). This amounts to an average of 47 hours per month.
During Randazza’s employment at E/L, he never billed less than 14.5 hours in a given month to other clients and in many months he billed between 50 and 90 hours to such clients. During the period from September 2011 through January 2012, Randazza billed 390.65 hours to non-E/L and non-pro bono clients, an average of over 78 hours per month.
This pattern of extensive and increasing work for non-E/L clients is evidence that Randazza had no intention of winding down his private practice as required by the Employment Agreement.
22. During his employment with E/L, including during the period from September 2011 through January 2012, E/L paid Randazza’s full salary and benefits, including bar dues in multiple jurisdictions.
ii. Randazza’s TNAFlix Relationship
23. Randazza, through RLG, represented Liberty in a lawsuit that he filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against TNAFlix (“TNA”) (Case. No. 10-CV-1972-JHA-POR) alleging that TNA (a file-sharing website) infringed Liberty’s copyrighted works (the “TNA Matter”). Valentin Gurvits, Esq. (“Gurvits”) of the Boston Law Group, LLP (“Boston Law”) represented TNA.
24. In December 2010 and January 2011, Randazza and Gurvits negotiated a settlement of the TNA Matter. During the course of those negotiations, Gurvits raised a concern about his client (TNA) being sued by other copyright owners in the future based on the same or similar allegations made by Liberty against TNA in the TNA matter.
In an email dated December 7, 2010, Randazza advised Gurvits that he “could largely prevent other plaintiffs from entering the fray.”
25. According to Randazza, Gurvits wanted to pay Randazza a “fee” of $5,000 in order to conflict Randazza out of future cases against TNA. In an email dated December 22, 2010, Randazza responded to Gurvits’ offer as follows:
For example, on January 11, 2011 Randazza wrote in an email to Gurvits:
Keeping me out of the TNA game is a little more complicated.
If your client wants to keep me personally out of the TNA game, then I think that there needs to be a little grave for me. And it has to be more than the $5k you were talking about before, I’m looking at the cost of at least a new Carrera in retainer deposits after circulating around the adult entertainment expo this week. I’m gonna want at least used BMW money.
In order to conflict me out of future matters, I suggest this:
Your firm retains me as “of counsel” to you. I get $5k per month (for six months) paid to me, from you (TNA will reimburse you, I presume). I will render advice on TNA and TNA only, and I’ll be Chinese walled from your other clients so that other conflicts are not created.
*******************************
That way, I’m adequately compensated for my loss of major potential work, and I’m conflicted out of acting adversely to TNA.
27. On January 12, 2011, Randazza apparently discovered that he was ethically prohibited from discussing limitations on his right to practice law during the course of settlement negotiations on behalf of a client, and sent an email to Gurvits saying that he could no longer discuss it, saying: “But I’m certain now that such an arrangement is unethical, in the terms we’ve been discussing it.” Nevertheless, Randazza recommended finding “some other way of addressing [TNA’s] interests,” and stated as follows:
Like I said before, if TNA wants to hire me *after* settlement, on terms that we discuss *after* settlement, then my phone line will be open.
However, it seems that if we place any part of a “buyoff” as a condition of settlement, then all four of us could wind up in bar trouble. I’m certainly not risking it.
28. On February 1, 2011, Liberty signed a Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims (the “TNA Settlement Agreement”) under which Liberty agreed to dismiss its claims against TNA without prejudice in exchange for payment of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00).
The next day (February 2, 2011) and before Randazza had even received the signature of Gurvits’ client on the TNA Settlement Agreement and the sameday that Randazza received the settlement payment from TNA, Randazza sent an email to Gurvits asking if TNA wanted “a retainer letter form [him].”
29. On February 11, 2011 Randazza emailed Gurvits a draft retainer letter from TNA to sign, which required a $36.000.00 retainer to be paid at the outset of the representation and deemed to be earned upon receipt. TNA did not, however, immediately sign the retainer letter, Randazza wrote to Gruvits in late June 2011 stating, “You will recall that I am not conflicted out of representing another client against [TNA].”
Source and Full Document, Case Filing
http://ia801505.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854.156.0.pdf
How in the WORLD is Marc Randazza still a Lawyer? WOW
Source and Full Motion
http://ia801505.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854.155.0.pdf
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY CREDITORS EXCELSIOR MEDIA CORP., AND LIBERTY MEDIA
HOLDINGS, LLC TO DETERMINE NON-DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBTS
"III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Defendant Randazza is the former in-house General Counsel of E/L. Randazza was employed as E/L’s General Counsel continuously from June, 2009 until August 2012.
8. Excelsior is a sister company to various entities including Liberty and Corbin Fisher. Corbin Fisher is an on-line entertainment website and brand name whose intellectual
property is owned by Liberty. Excelsior is a film production company that creates videos for the Corbin Fisher brand.
E/L has consistently endeavored to and succeeded at conducting its business in a principled and professional manner. E/L relocated its headquarters from San Diego, California to Las Vegas in February 2011.
9. Randazza also relocated from San Diego, California to Las Vegas in 2011 to continue his employment relationship with E/L. Randazza markets himself as a “specialist” in First Amendment and intellectual property law, particularly with regard to the adult entertainment industry.
10. E/L and Randazza became acquainted while Randazza was an associate at a firm specializing in First Amendment related legal work in Florida. E/L later decided to hire a General Counsel. Randazza pursued and accepted the position. Randazza drafted an employment agreement, which was executed by the parties in June, 2009 (“Employment Agreement”).
Randazza at no time advise Plaintiffs that they should seek independent counsel to review the agreement even though Plaintiffs were obviously unrepresented. During the course of his
employment with E/L, Randazza was an integral part of E/L’s management and, along with several other executives, participated in making many of E/L’s major corporate decisions.
11. The primary reason E/L decided to hire a General Counsel was to ensure its intellectual property was protected. One of the most significant challenges faced by E/L and all companies in the film and entertainment industry is the illegal downloading and sharing of content/videos produced by E/L. However, Randazza was tasked with handling all of E/L’s legal matters.
A. THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
12. Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Randazza was to wind down his private practice during his first 90 days of employment and become E/L’s full-time General Counsel.
13. Section “6.C” of the Employment Agreement permitted Randazza to continue to provide professional services to a “limited number of outside clients” during non-working hours if such work did not present a conflict of interest for E/L. Contrary to his obligations under the Employment Agreement and without the knowledge of E/L, Randazza continued to aggressively grow his private practice during his employment after becoming E/L’s General Counsel.
14. Randazza’s compensation consisted of an annual salary of $208,000. Randazza also included in the Employment Agreement the unique arrangement of a nondiscretionary bonus of 25% of any settlement funds paid to E/L.
15. At the time of the execution of the Employment Agreement, the parties contemplated that Randazza would be handling all of E/L’s legal matters independently. Instead, Randazza began to utilize his own firm, Randazza Legal Group (“RLG”) and various outside counsel to assist in E/L’s legal matters.
16. The Employment Agreement also required that E/L provide Randazza with a laptop computer and PDA/phone, which were to be primarily used for E/L business with only occasional and incidental personal use permitted. The Employment Agreement further provided that such equipment was not to be used for professional services rendered to other clients.
17. The Employment Agreement provided for severance in the amount of 12 weeks of salary if E/L were to unilaterally terminate Randazza in the fourth year of employment or later.
There is no severance obligation if Randazza resigned or was terminated for cause.
18. The Employment Agreement also includes a governing law provision stating “[t]his Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of laws.” Randazza was able to reside virtually anywhere he wanted. Initially, Randazza lived and worked in San Diego, California. However, Randazza relocated to Las Vegas, Nevada in June 2011, just as few months after E/L relocated its headquarters.
19. At Randazza’s request, E/L hired Erika Dillon (“Dillon”), a paralegal. Dillon was employed by E/L as a paralegal at the time of Randazza’s resignation. Dillon left her employment after Randazza’s resignation at Randazza’s request B. ISSUES ARISE BETWEEN E/L AND RANDAZZA
i. Randazza’s Non-E/L Work
20. As noted above, under the Employment Agreement Randazza was obligated to wind down his private practice during the first 90 days of his employment with E/L.
21. After becoming E/L’s General Counsel, however, Randazza kept adding clients to his practice, RLG, and over the period from October 2009 through August 2012, he billed over 1,643 hours to clients for work unrelated to E/L (and not including pro bono work). This amounts to an average of 47 hours per month.
During Randazza’s employment at E/L, he never billed less than 14.5 hours in a given month to other clients and in many months he billed between 50 and 90 hours to such clients. During the period from September 2011 through January 2012, Randazza billed 390.65 hours to non-E/L and non-pro bono clients, an average of over 78 hours per month.
This pattern of extensive and increasing work for non-E/L clients is evidence that Randazza had no intention of winding down his private practice as required by the Employment Agreement.
22. During his employment with E/L, including during the period from September 2011 through January 2012, E/L paid Randazza’s full salary and benefits, including bar dues in multiple jurisdictions.
ii. Randazza’s TNAFlix Relationship
23. Randazza, through RLG, represented Liberty in a lawsuit that he filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against TNAFlix (“TNA”) (Case. No. 10-CV-1972-JHA-POR) alleging that TNA (a file-sharing website) infringed Liberty’s copyrighted works (the “TNA Matter”). Valentin Gurvits, Esq. (“Gurvits”) of the Boston Law Group, LLP (“Boston Law”) represented TNA.
24. In December 2010 and January 2011, Randazza and Gurvits negotiated a settlement of the TNA Matter. During the course of those negotiations, Gurvits raised a concern about his client (TNA) being sued by other copyright owners in the future based on the same or similar allegations made by Liberty against TNA in the TNA matter.
In an email dated December 7, 2010, Randazza advised Gurvits that he “could largely prevent other plaintiffs from entering the fray.”
25. According to Randazza, Gurvits wanted to pay Randazza a “fee” of $5,000 in order to conflict Randazza out of future cases against TNA. In an email dated December 22, 2010, Randazza responded to Gurvits’ offer as follows:
As far as conflicting me out of future cases, that will require significantly more than $5,000. In fact, I have someone waiting in the wings with a $50k retainer right now. Naturally, I’m in a strange ethical bind, as your offer to conflict me out of future cases against your client is something that would benefit my current client. Accordingly, I would be willing to be conflicted out of cases against TNA, but that $5k figure has to come up. Either that, or you can give [Liberty] what they asked for, and I’ll conflict myself out for a token payment26. Randazza and Gurvits continued to discuss the prospect of conflicting Randazza out of future cases against TNA during the course of negotiating a settlement of the TNA Matter.
For example, on January 11, 2011 Randazza wrote in an email to Gurvits:
Keeping me out of the TNA game is a little more complicated.
If your client wants to keep me personally out of the TNA game, then I think that there needs to be a little grave for me. And it has to be more than the $5k you were talking about before, I’m looking at the cost of at least a new Carrera in retainer deposits after circulating around the adult entertainment expo this week. I’m gonna want at least used BMW money.
In order to conflict me out of future matters, I suggest this:
Your firm retains me as “of counsel” to you. I get $5k per month (for six months) paid to me, from you (TNA will reimburse you, I presume). I will render advice on TNA and TNA only, and I’ll be Chinese walled from your other clients so that other conflicts are not created.
*******************************
That way, I’m adequately compensated for my loss of major potential work, and I’m conflicted out of acting adversely to TNA.
27. On January 12, 2011, Randazza apparently discovered that he was ethically prohibited from discussing limitations on his right to practice law during the course of settlement negotiations on behalf of a client, and sent an email to Gurvits saying that he could no longer discuss it, saying: “But I’m certain now that such an arrangement is unethical, in the terms we’ve been discussing it.” Nevertheless, Randazza recommended finding “some other way of addressing [TNA’s] interests,” and stated as follows:
Like I said before, if TNA wants to hire me *after* settlement, on terms that we discuss *after* settlement, then my phone line will be open.
However, it seems that if we place any part of a “buyoff” as a condition of settlement, then all four of us could wind up in bar trouble. I’m certainly not risking it.
28. On February 1, 2011, Liberty signed a Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims (the “TNA Settlement Agreement”) under which Liberty agreed to dismiss its claims against TNA without prejudice in exchange for payment of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00).
The next day (February 2, 2011) and before Randazza had even received the signature of Gurvits’ client on the TNA Settlement Agreement and the sameday that Randazza received the settlement payment from TNA, Randazza sent an email to Gurvits asking if TNA wanted “a retainer letter form [him].”
29. On February 11, 2011 Randazza emailed Gurvits a draft retainer letter from TNA to sign, which required a $36.000.00 retainer to be paid at the outset of the representation and deemed to be earned upon receipt. TNA did not, however, immediately sign the retainer letter, Randazza wrote to Gruvits in late June 2011 stating, “You will recall that I am not conflicted out of representing another client against [TNA].”
Source and Full Document, Case Filing
http://ia801505.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854.156.0.pdf
How in the WORLD is Marc Randazza still a Lawyer? WOW
Bankruptcy Cry Baby Victim Marc Randazza. RANDAZZA has me, Crystal Cox the Biggest Creditor in this CASE, yet I have no Rights and my LAWSUIT against him, as my former attorney is simply FROZEN. Marc Randazza, attorney, has used the Nevada Bankruptcy courts as a tool to violate the rights of his former clients, and to STOP legal action again him.
"Debtor’s misguided criticisms of the IAA are an example of Debtor’s attempt to portray himself as a victim"
Source and Full Motion
http://ia801505.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854.155.0.pdf
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY CREDITORS EXCELSIOR MEDIA CORP., AND LIBERTY MEDIA
HOLDINGS, LLC TO DETERMINE NON-DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBTS
"III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Defendant Randazza is the former in-house General Counsel of E/L. Randazza was employed as E/L’s General Counsel continuously from June, 2009 until August 2012.
8. Excelsior is a sister company to various entities including Liberty and Corbin Fisher. Corbin Fisher is an on-line entertainment website and brand name whose intellectual
property is owned by Liberty. Excelsior is a film production company that creates videos for the Corbin Fisher brand.
E/L has consistently endeavored to and succeeded at conducting its business in a principled and professional manner. E/L relocated its headquarters from San Diego, California to Las Vegas in February 2011.
9. Randazza also relocated from San Diego, California to Las Vegas in 2011 to continue his employment relationship with E/L. Randazza markets himself as a “specialist” in First Amendment and intellectual property law, particularly with regard to the adult entertainment industry.
10. E/L and Randazza became acquainted while Randazza was an associate at a firm specializing in First Amendment related legal work in Florida. E/L later decided to hire a General Counsel. Randazza pursued and accepted the position. Randazza drafted an employment agreement, which was executed by the parties in June, 2009 (“Employment Agreement”).
Randazza at no time advise Plaintiffs that they should seek independent counsel to review the agreement even though Plaintiffs were obviously unrepresented. During the course of his
employment with E/L, Randazza was an integral part of E/L’s management and, along with several other executives, participated in making many of E/L’s major corporate decisions.
11. The primary reason E/L decided to hire a General Counsel was to ensure its intellectual property was protected. One of the most significant challenges faced by E/L and all companies in the film and entertainment industry is the illegal downloading and sharing of content/videos produced by E/L. However, Randazza was tasked with handling all of E/L’s legal matters.
A. THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
12. Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Randazza was to wind down his private practice during his first 90 days of employment and become E/L’s full-time General Counsel.
13. Section “6.C” of the Employment Agreement permitted Randazza to continue to provide professional services to a “limited number of outside clients” during non-working hours if such work did not present a conflict of interest for E/L. Contrary to his obligations under the Employment Agreement and without the knowledge of E/L, Randazza continued to aggressively grow his private practice during his employment after becoming E/L’s General Counsel.
14. Randazza’s compensation consisted of an annual salary of $208,000. Randazza also included in the Employment Agreement the unique arrangement of a nondiscretionary bonus of 25% of any settlement funds paid to E/L.
15. At the time of the execution of the Employment Agreement, the parties contemplated that Randazza would be handling all of E/L’s legal matters independently. Instead, Randazza began to utilize his own firm, Randazza Legal Group (“RLG”) and various outside counsel to assist in E/L’s legal matters.
16. The Employment Agreement also required that E/L provide Randazza with a laptop computer and PDA/phone, which were to be primarily used for E/L business with only occasional and incidental personal use permitted. The Employment Agreement further provided that such equipment was not to be used for professional services rendered to other clients.
17. The Employment Agreement provided for severance in the amount of 12 weeks of salary if E/L were to unilaterally terminate Randazza in the fourth year of employment or later.
There is no severance obligation if Randazza resigned or was terminated for cause.
18. The Employment Agreement also includes a governing law provision stating “[t]his Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of laws.” Randazza was able to reside virtually anywhere he wanted. Initially, Randazza lived and worked in San Diego, California. However, Randazza relocated to Las Vegas, Nevada in June 2011, just as few months after E/L relocated its headquarters.
19. At Randazza’s request, E/L hired Erika Dillon (“Dillon”), a paralegal. Dillon was employed by E/L as a paralegal at the time of Randazza’s resignation. Dillon left her employment after Randazza’s resignation at Randazza’s request B. ISSUES ARISE BETWEEN E/L AND RANDAZZA
i. Randazza’s Non-E/L Work
20. As noted above, under the Employment Agreement Randazza was obligated to wind down his private practice during the first 90 days of his employment with E/L.
21. After becoming E/L’s General Counsel, however, Randazza kept adding clients to his practice, RLG, and over the period from October 2009 through August 2012, he billed over 1,643 hours to clients for work unrelated to E/L (and not including pro bono work). This amounts to an average of 47 hours per month.
During Randazza’s employment at E/L, he never billed less than 14.5 hours in a given month to other clients and in many months he billed between 50 and 90 hours to such clients. During the period from September 2011 through January 2012, Randazza billed 390.65 hours to non-E/L and non-pro bono clients, an average of over 78 hours per month.
This pattern of extensive and increasing work for non-E/L clients is evidence that Randazza had no intention of winding down his private practice as required by the Employment Agreement.
22. During his employment with E/L, including during the period from September 2011 through January 2012, E/L paid Randazza’s full salary and benefits, including bar dues in multiple jurisdictions.
ii. Randazza’s TNAFlix Relationship
23. Randazza, through RLG, represented Liberty in a lawsuit that he filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against TNAFlix (“TNA”) (Case. No. 10-CV-1972-JHA-POR) alleging that TNA (a file-sharing website) infringed Liberty’s copyrighted works (the “TNA Matter”). Valentin Gurvits, Esq. (“Gurvits”) of the Boston Law Group, LLP (“Boston Law”) represented TNA.
24. In December 2010 and January 2011, Randazza and Gurvits negotiated a settlement of the TNA Matter. During the course of those negotiations, Gurvits raised a concern about his client (TNA) being sued by other copyright owners in the future based on the same or similar allegations made by Liberty against TNA in the TNA matter.
In an email dated December 7, 2010, Randazza advised Gurvits that he “could largely prevent other plaintiffs from entering the fray.”
25. According to Randazza, Gurvits wanted to pay Randazza a “fee” of $5,000 in order to conflict Randazza out of future cases against TNA. In an email dated December 22, 2010, Randazza responded to Gurvits’ offer as follows:
For example, on January 11, 2011 Randazza wrote in an email to Gurvits:
Keeping me out of the TNA game is a little more complicated.
If your client wants to keep me personally out of the TNA game, then I think that there needs to be a little grave for me. And it has to be more than the $5k you were talking about before, I’m looking at the cost of at least a new Carrera in retainer deposits after circulating around the adult entertainment expo this week. I’m gonna want at least used BMW money.
In order to conflict me out of future matters, I suggest this:
Your firm retains me as “of counsel” to you. I get $5k per month (for six months) paid to me, from you (TNA will reimburse you, I presume). I will render advice on TNA and TNA only, and I’ll be Chinese walled from your other clients so that other conflicts are not created.
*******************************
That way, I’m adequately compensated for my loss of major potential work, and I’m conflicted out of acting adversely to TNA.
27. On January 12, 2011, Randazza apparently discovered that he was ethically prohibited from discussing limitations on his right to practice law during the course of settlement negotiations on behalf of a client, and sent an email to Gurvits saying that he could no longer discuss it, saying: “But I’m certain now that such an arrangement is unethical, in the terms we’ve been discussing it.” Nevertheless, Randazza recommended finding “some other way of addressing [TNA’s] interests,” and stated as follows:
Like I said before, if TNA wants to hire me *after* settlement, on terms that we discuss *after* settlement, then my phone line will be open.
However, it seems that if we place any part of a “buyoff” as a condition of settlement, then all four of us could wind up in bar trouble. I’m certainly not risking it.
28. On February 1, 2011, Liberty signed a Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims (the “TNA Settlement Agreement”) under which Liberty agreed to dismiss its claims against TNA without prejudice in exchange for payment of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00).
The next day (February 2, 2011) and before Randazza had even received the signature of Gurvits’ client on the TNA Settlement Agreement and the sameday that Randazza received the settlement payment from TNA, Randazza sent an email to Gurvits asking if TNA wanted “a retainer letter form [him].”
29. On February 11, 2011 Randazza emailed Gurvits a draft retainer letter from TNA to sign, which required a $36.000.00 retainer to be paid at the outset of the representation and deemed to be earned upon receipt. TNA did not, however, immediately sign the retainer letter, Randazza wrote to Gruvits in late June 2011 stating, “You will recall that I am not conflicted out of representing another client against [TNA].”
Source and Full Document, Case Filing
http://ia801505.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854.156.0.pdf
How in the WORLD is Marc Randazza still a Lawyer? WOW
Source and Full Motion
http://ia801505.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854.155.0.pdf
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY CREDITORS EXCELSIOR MEDIA CORP., AND LIBERTY MEDIA
HOLDINGS, LLC TO DETERMINE NON-DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBTS
"III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Defendant Randazza is the former in-house General Counsel of E/L. Randazza was employed as E/L’s General Counsel continuously from June, 2009 until August 2012.
8. Excelsior is a sister company to various entities including Liberty and Corbin Fisher. Corbin Fisher is an on-line entertainment website and brand name whose intellectual
property is owned by Liberty. Excelsior is a film production company that creates videos for the Corbin Fisher brand.
E/L has consistently endeavored to and succeeded at conducting its business in a principled and professional manner. E/L relocated its headquarters from San Diego, California to Las Vegas in February 2011.
9. Randazza also relocated from San Diego, California to Las Vegas in 2011 to continue his employment relationship with E/L. Randazza markets himself as a “specialist” in First Amendment and intellectual property law, particularly with regard to the adult entertainment industry.
10. E/L and Randazza became acquainted while Randazza was an associate at a firm specializing in First Amendment related legal work in Florida. E/L later decided to hire a General Counsel. Randazza pursued and accepted the position. Randazza drafted an employment agreement, which was executed by the parties in June, 2009 (“Employment Agreement”).
Randazza at no time advise Plaintiffs that they should seek independent counsel to review the agreement even though Plaintiffs were obviously unrepresented. During the course of his
employment with E/L, Randazza was an integral part of E/L’s management and, along with several other executives, participated in making many of E/L’s major corporate decisions.
11. The primary reason E/L decided to hire a General Counsel was to ensure its intellectual property was protected. One of the most significant challenges faced by E/L and all companies in the film and entertainment industry is the illegal downloading and sharing of content/videos produced by E/L. However, Randazza was tasked with handling all of E/L’s legal matters.
A. THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
12. Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Randazza was to wind down his private practice during his first 90 days of employment and become E/L’s full-time General Counsel.
13. Section “6.C” of the Employment Agreement permitted Randazza to continue to provide professional services to a “limited number of outside clients” during non-working hours if such work did not present a conflict of interest for E/L. Contrary to his obligations under the Employment Agreement and without the knowledge of E/L, Randazza continued to aggressively grow his private practice during his employment after becoming E/L’s General Counsel.
14. Randazza’s compensation consisted of an annual salary of $208,000. Randazza also included in the Employment Agreement the unique arrangement of a nondiscretionary bonus of 25% of any settlement funds paid to E/L.
15. At the time of the execution of the Employment Agreement, the parties contemplated that Randazza would be handling all of E/L’s legal matters independently. Instead, Randazza began to utilize his own firm, Randazza Legal Group (“RLG”) and various outside counsel to assist in E/L’s legal matters.
16. The Employment Agreement also required that E/L provide Randazza with a laptop computer and PDA/phone, which were to be primarily used for E/L business with only occasional and incidental personal use permitted. The Employment Agreement further provided that such equipment was not to be used for professional services rendered to other clients.
17. The Employment Agreement provided for severance in the amount of 12 weeks of salary if E/L were to unilaterally terminate Randazza in the fourth year of employment or later.
There is no severance obligation if Randazza resigned or was terminated for cause.
18. The Employment Agreement also includes a governing law provision stating “[t]his Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of laws.” Randazza was able to reside virtually anywhere he wanted. Initially, Randazza lived and worked in San Diego, California. However, Randazza relocated to Las Vegas, Nevada in June 2011, just as few months after E/L relocated its headquarters.
19. At Randazza’s request, E/L hired Erika Dillon (“Dillon”), a paralegal. Dillon was employed by E/L as a paralegal at the time of Randazza’s resignation. Dillon left her employment after Randazza’s resignation at Randazza’s request B. ISSUES ARISE BETWEEN E/L AND RANDAZZA
i. Randazza’s Non-E/L Work
20. As noted above, under the Employment Agreement Randazza was obligated to wind down his private practice during the first 90 days of his employment with E/L.
21. After becoming E/L’s General Counsel, however, Randazza kept adding clients to his practice, RLG, and over the period from October 2009 through August 2012, he billed over 1,643 hours to clients for work unrelated to E/L (and not including pro bono work). This amounts to an average of 47 hours per month.
During Randazza’s employment at E/L, he never billed less than 14.5 hours in a given month to other clients and in many months he billed between 50 and 90 hours to such clients. During the period from September 2011 through January 2012, Randazza billed 390.65 hours to non-E/L and non-pro bono clients, an average of over 78 hours per month.
This pattern of extensive and increasing work for non-E/L clients is evidence that Randazza had no intention of winding down his private practice as required by the Employment Agreement.
22. During his employment with E/L, including during the period from September 2011 through January 2012, E/L paid Randazza’s full salary and benefits, including bar dues in multiple jurisdictions.
ii. Randazza’s TNAFlix Relationship
23. Randazza, through RLG, represented Liberty in a lawsuit that he filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against TNAFlix (“TNA”) (Case. No. 10-CV-1972-JHA-POR) alleging that TNA (a file-sharing website) infringed Liberty’s copyrighted works (the “TNA Matter”). Valentin Gurvits, Esq. (“Gurvits”) of the Boston Law Group, LLP (“Boston Law”) represented TNA.
24. In December 2010 and January 2011, Randazza and Gurvits negotiated a settlement of the TNA Matter. During the course of those negotiations, Gurvits raised a concern about his client (TNA) being sued by other copyright owners in the future based on the same or similar allegations made by Liberty against TNA in the TNA matter.
In an email dated December 7, 2010, Randazza advised Gurvits that he “could largely prevent other plaintiffs from entering the fray.”
25. According to Randazza, Gurvits wanted to pay Randazza a “fee” of $5,000 in order to conflict Randazza out of future cases against TNA. In an email dated December 22, 2010, Randazza responded to Gurvits’ offer as follows:
As far as conflicting me out of future cases, that will require significantly more than $5,000. In fact, I have someone waiting in the wings with a $50k retainer right now. Naturally, I’m in a strange ethical bind, as your offer to conflict me out of future cases against your client is something that would benefit my current client. Accordingly, I would be willing to be conflicted out of cases against TNA, but that $5k figure has to come up. Either that, or you can give [Liberty] what they asked for, and I’ll conflict myself out for a token payment26. Randazza and Gurvits continued to discuss the prospect of conflicting Randazza out of future cases against TNA during the course of negotiating a settlement of the TNA Matter.
For example, on January 11, 2011 Randazza wrote in an email to Gurvits:
Keeping me out of the TNA game is a little more complicated.
If your client wants to keep me personally out of the TNA game, then I think that there needs to be a little grave for me. And it has to be more than the $5k you were talking about before, I’m looking at the cost of at least a new Carrera in retainer deposits after circulating around the adult entertainment expo this week. I’m gonna want at least used BMW money.
In order to conflict me out of future matters, I suggest this:
Your firm retains me as “of counsel” to you. I get $5k per month (for six months) paid to me, from you (TNA will reimburse you, I presume). I will render advice on TNA and TNA only, and I’ll be Chinese walled from your other clients so that other conflicts are not created.
*******************************
That way, I’m adequately compensated for my loss of major potential work, and I’m conflicted out of acting adversely to TNA.
27. On January 12, 2011, Randazza apparently discovered that he was ethically prohibited from discussing limitations on his right to practice law during the course of settlement negotiations on behalf of a client, and sent an email to Gurvits saying that he could no longer discuss it, saying: “But I’m certain now that such an arrangement is unethical, in the terms we’ve been discussing it.” Nevertheless, Randazza recommended finding “some other way of addressing [TNA’s] interests,” and stated as follows:
Like I said before, if TNA wants to hire me *after* settlement, on terms that we discuss *after* settlement, then my phone line will be open.
However, it seems that if we place any part of a “buyoff” as a condition of settlement, then all four of us could wind up in bar trouble. I’m certainly not risking it.
28. On February 1, 2011, Liberty signed a Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims (the “TNA Settlement Agreement”) under which Liberty agreed to dismiss its claims against TNA without prejudice in exchange for payment of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00).
The next day (February 2, 2011) and before Randazza had even received the signature of Gurvits’ client on the TNA Settlement Agreement and the sameday that Randazza received the settlement payment from TNA, Randazza sent an email to Gurvits asking if TNA wanted “a retainer letter form [him].”
29. On February 11, 2011 Randazza emailed Gurvits a draft retainer letter from TNA to sign, which required a $36.000.00 retainer to be paid at the outset of the representation and deemed to be earned upon receipt. TNA did not, however, immediately sign the retainer letter, Randazza wrote to Gruvits in late June 2011 stating, “You will recall that I am not conflicted out of representing another client against [TNA].”
Source and Full Document, Case Filing
http://ia801505.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854.156.0.pdf
How in the WORLD is Marc Randazza still a Lawyer? WOW
Sue Sue Sue. Chill Speech Chill Speech. First Amendment Attorney, Law Firm Randazza Legal Group LOVES to SUE people to SILENCE them. And all in the Name of Free Speech. Meanwhile he hides behind a bankruptcy court in Cox v. Randazza, with NO end in sight.
Porn Blogger Mike South aka Michael Strother THREATENS to Sue Monica Foster. oH and for FREE with us of Unconstitutional, Unethical attorney Marc Randazza of Rabid Randazza Legal Group.
There are so many people that Marc Randazza has offered to represent for FREE to Silence Free Speech that exposes him. oh and to RETALIATE. Meanwhile he does not even have the stamina to stay in legal cases with us, he has to HIDE in bankruptcy court while doing FREE legal work out of unethical SPITE.
So, this Guy, Mike South aka Michael Strother, calls himself a PIMP and then threatens to Sue others who call him a Pimp too? WTF
"How in the hell would Randazza Legal Group attorneys (who've already filed one fraudulent lawsuit against me in regards to Jennifer Randazza's attachment to organized crime) and Michael Strother explain the above to a Judge? In addition how will Randazza Legal Group explain to a Judge that they are offering their legal services pro-bono to self labeled PIMPS (who are not owners and/or operators of legal brothels in Nevada) - all in effort to silence individuals who have opted to share the truth about sex trafficking and the adult entertainment industry?
According to wikipedia and many other sources - a pimp is a sex trafficker.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_trafficking
Definition of “PIMP” according to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary: a criminal who is associated with, usually exerts control over, and lives off the earnings of one or more prostituteshttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pimp
I will not be apologizing to Mike South aka Michael Strother. In addition, he will not be suing me for "libel", as his entire proposed lawsuit has no legitimacy or merit.
I encourage you all to read and sign this petition I wrote, just a day prior to Mike South aka Michael Strother's lawsuit threat: https://www.change.org/p/michael-weinstein-aids-healthcare-foundation-differentiate-illegal-prostitutes-from-legitimate-pornstars"
There are so many people that Marc Randazza has offered to represent for FREE to Silence Free Speech that exposes him. oh and to RETALIATE. Meanwhile he does not even have the stamina to stay in legal cases with us, he has to HIDE in bankruptcy court while doing FREE legal work out of unethical SPITE.
So, this Guy, Mike South aka Michael Strother, calls himself a PIMP and then threatens to Sue others who call him a Pimp too? WTF
"How in the hell would Randazza Legal Group attorneys (who've already filed one fraudulent lawsuit against me in regards to Jennifer Randazza's attachment to organized crime) and Michael Strother explain the above to a Judge? In addition how will Randazza Legal Group explain to a Judge that they are offering their legal services pro-bono to self labeled PIMPS (who are not owners and/or operators of legal brothels in Nevada) - all in effort to silence individuals who have opted to share the truth about sex trafficking and the adult entertainment industry?
According to wikipedia and many other sources - a pimp is a sex trafficker.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_trafficking
Definition of “PIMP” according to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary: a criminal who is associated with, usually exerts control over, and lives off the earnings of one or more prostituteshttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pimp
I will not be apologizing to Mike South aka Michael Strother. In addition, he will not be suing me for "libel", as his entire proposed lawsuit has no legitimacy or merit.
I encourage you all to read and sign this petition I wrote, just a day prior to Mike South aka Michael Strother's lawsuit threat: https://www.change.org/p/michael-weinstein-aids-healthcare-foundation-differentiate-illegal-prostitutes-from-legitimate-pornstars"
Source of Above
Mike South aka Michael Strother has threatened to sue me for my stating what he's labeled himself as - a PIMP
On August 13, 2016 veteran porn blogger Mike South aka Michael Strother stated that he would take Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group's offer to sue me (apparently Randazza offered his legal services to Strother pro-bono). Strother indicated that he would sue me for "libel" because I claimed that he is a pimp and involved in sex trafficking.
Source of Above
I wonder what Marc Randazza's Creditors think of all his Pro Bono legal cases he offers and takes, and all in the name of REVENGE and nothing to do with Justice or making money to pay off his CREDITORS.
Marc Randazza Bankruptcy
Randazza vs. Crystal Cox Free Speech Suppression Case Docket
Friday, August 5, 2016
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Monday, July 25, 2016
Friday, May 20, 2016
WIPO is NOT Neutral. WIPO is Corruptible. WIPO favors Trademark Lawyers and their Cronies. Investigate WIPO and Demand Accountability and Transparency.
For years we have seen repeated "calls for the official publication of independent investigations into claims made about the conduct of WIPO" and now maybe WIPO is actually being investigated. START with Peter Michaelson, Francis Gurry, and their connections and conspiracy with INTA and Trademark Attorney favoritism.
WIPO has been acting in collusion with Trademark Attorneys such as Marc Randazza and Peter Michaelson for a VERY long time.
WIPO does not act independent nor fair and they simply STEAL intellectual property and give to whoever can do the most for them or they are acting in conspiracy with.
I have an email that Francis Gurry copied Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation , WIPO works in conspiracy with corporations such as INTEL and against the rights of Citizens, Inventors and Intellectual property owners.
"In a hearing held yesterday afternoon by several sub-committees of the US Congress, a series of allegations about WIPO accountability and the mistreatment of staff and whistleblowers by Director General Francis Gurry were dramatically laid bare. At the heart of the discussion is a still-unpublished United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report into accusations levelled at Gurry.
On World Trademark Review we have previously reported on calls for the official publication of independent investigations into claims made about the conduct of WIPO’s current leader.
In April 2014, James Pooley, previously a deputy director general of the UN body, alleged that Gurry had violated the human rights of WIPO employees whose DNA is said to have been collected without their permission and of suppressing evidence that this had occurred.
He also alleged that Gurry improperly used his influence in a procurement procedure to benefit an Australian acquaintance. Just under a year ago, when we last reported on the allegations, there had been seemingly not been an official and independent investigation of the allegations. Fast forward 12 months and the momentum is building."
Source and Full Article
http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=1e135866-a9e6-42b8-b359-dcb50df5cd35
Also Check Out
http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Blog/detail.aspx?g=b1f3f4f9-8058-45ed-ba8e-cec2545c591c
http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Blog/detail.aspx?g=f39b85f8-2f38-4a8f-ad80-6d0fc2ae4896
Don't Forget to investigate the INTA, and the Trademark attorneys like Marc Randazza and Peter Michaelson that have conflicts of interest and act in collusion to ruin reputations, steal search engine placement, steal intellectual property and affect court cases and precedent.
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox tried to SUE WIPO. Crystal Cox informed authorities over and over, informed Godaddy, attorneys, Trademark authorities, the DOJ, the FBI, and multiple courts. They did NOTHING. The COURTS have known for a long time and looked the other way.
Here is some case filings;
Cox v. WIPO
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18fl76BglTzfcb4WdCeiunPHnp9ISycp2WSPkDC195pY/edit
Crystal L. Cox vs. Godaddy, WIPO Court Complaint
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiN0RsbXFqakVNSU0/view
WIPO named in RICO complaint, page 60-80 approx.
http://www.iviewit.tv/20130512MotionRehearReopenObstruction.pdf
WIPO SEC Complaint, iViewit
http://www.iviewit.tv/20130512MotionRehearReopenObstruction.pdf
WIPO and iViewit
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/oneofthesedays/
iViewit Patent Information
http://www.google.ch/patents/WO2001009836A1?cl=en
Many other State Courts and Authorities were noticed as well. So was German Courts. They ALL ignored the collusion time and time again.
Check out page 134 on this document / book - WIPO is Immune, Check out the Whole Book .
https://books.google.com/books?id=EBN5CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=crystal+l+cox+district+of+new+jersey&source=bl&ots=NZMp39HKy4&sig=_-YHcKJjJgyOq9Thy2RCKUMPT3Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmydq33-nMAhUI3mMKHTQMBAMQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=crystal%20l%20cox%20district%20of%20new%20jersey&f=false
WIPO IS Very VERY Corrupt. It is about time that someone is paying attention.
WIPO has been acting in collusion with Trademark Attorneys such as Marc Randazza and Peter Michaelson for a VERY long time.
WIPO does not act independent nor fair and they simply STEAL intellectual property and give to whoever can do the most for them or they are acting in conspiracy with.
I have an email that Francis Gurry copied Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation , WIPO works in conspiracy with corporations such as INTEL and against the rights of Citizens, Inventors and Intellectual property owners.
"Congress sets sights on WIPO over whistleblower allegations"
"In a hearing held yesterday afternoon by several sub-committees of the US Congress, a series of allegations about WIPO accountability and the mistreatment of staff and whistleblowers by Director General Francis Gurry were dramatically laid bare. At the heart of the discussion is a still-unpublished United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report into accusations levelled at Gurry.
On World Trademark Review we have previously reported on calls for the official publication of independent investigations into claims made about the conduct of WIPO’s current leader.
In April 2014, James Pooley, previously a deputy director general of the UN body, alleged that Gurry had violated the human rights of WIPO employees whose DNA is said to have been collected without their permission and of suppressing evidence that this had occurred.
He also alleged that Gurry improperly used his influence in a procurement procedure to benefit an Australian acquaintance. Just under a year ago, when we last reported on the allegations, there had been seemingly not been an official and independent investigation of the allegations. Fast forward 12 months and the momentum is building."
Source and Full Article
http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=1e135866-a9e6-42b8-b359-dcb50df5cd35
Also Check Out
http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Blog/detail.aspx?g=b1f3f4f9-8058-45ed-ba8e-cec2545c591c
http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Blog/detail.aspx?g=f39b85f8-2f38-4a8f-ad80-6d0fc2ae4896
Don't Forget to investigate the INTA, and the Trademark attorneys like Marc Randazza and Peter Michaelson that have conflicts of interest and act in collusion to ruin reputations, steal search engine placement, steal intellectual property and affect court cases and precedent.
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox tried to SUE WIPO. Crystal Cox informed authorities over and over, informed Godaddy, attorneys, Trademark authorities, the DOJ, the FBI, and multiple courts. They did NOTHING. The COURTS have known for a long time and looked the other way.
Here is some case filings;
Cox v. WIPO
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18fl76BglTzfcb4WdCeiunPHnp9ISycp2WSPkDC195pY/edit
Crystal L. Cox vs. Godaddy, WIPO Court Complaint
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiN0RsbXFqakVNSU0/view
WIPO named in RICO complaint, page 60-80 approx.
http://www.iviewit.tv/20130512MotionRehearReopenObstruction.pdf
WIPO SEC Complaint, iViewit
http://www.iviewit.tv/20130512MotionRehearReopenObstruction.pdf
WIPO and iViewit
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/oneofthesedays/
iViewit Patent Information
http://www.google.ch/patents/WO2001009836A1?cl=en
Many other State Courts and Authorities were noticed as well. So was German Courts. They ALL ignored the collusion time and time again.
HOLD WIPO ACCOUNTABLE
Immunity of International Organizations
Check out page 134 on this document / book - WIPO is Immune, Check out the Whole Book .
https://books.google.com/books?id=EBN5CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=crystal+l+cox+district+of+new+jersey&source=bl&ots=NZMp39HKy4&sig=_-YHcKJjJgyOq9Thy2RCKUMPT3Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmydq33-nMAhUI3mMKHTQMBAMQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=crystal%20l%20cox%20district%20of%20new%20jersey&f=false
Why is this ASSHOLE still an attorney? Can't Judges, Attorney General's, Detectives, the DOJ, or any authority READ. Marc Randazza has CLEARLY violated the rights of client after client. He defends pedophiles, and should be indicted as far as I see it. Yet he is still YAPPING as if what he says has ANY credibility.
" Feldman regrets “demonstrating a lack of impulse control” in sending the email."
Source
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/05/12/end-yourselves-councilwomen-threatened-after-voting-against-seattles-nba-arena/
Oh ya Marc Randazza clients can email whatever they want. But if Crystal Cox emails an attorney, acting as her own attorney, in a PRIVATE CONFIDENTIAL settlement agreement, then that is EXTORTION and Marc Randazza shouts from every rooftop and in every big media that will listen that she is an Extortionist. And he published my private email in mass, knowing it was being painted in false light as he had acted as my attorney. That private email was made to be EVIL and Randazza can ruin lives, flat out lie about whoever he wants, threaten people and say whatever LIE he wants and that is ok, legal and ethical??
But oh yeah my client is abusive, and an asshole like me but he is sorry, so sorry.
FUCK You Marc Randazza. IT IS NOT ok for you to RUIN LIVES with your LIES. Why do you still have a license to represent clients?? WOW.
"“He has come to realize that his reactions, and the communications he sent, were over the top, and that his tendency to this kind of behavior is a long-standing problem,” said Marc J. Randazza, a First Amendment attorney who represents Jason M. Feldman, in a statement. “He unequivocally apologizes to the recipients of his abusive comments.”
Source of this Marc Randazza, Hyprocrite ASSHOLE Attorney quote
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2016/05/09/attorney-admits-emails-to-female-city.html
"“As women, I understand that you spend a lot of your time trying to please others (mostly on your knees) but I can only hope that you each find ways to quickly and painfully end yourselves,” the email said. “Each of you should rot in hell for what you took from me yesterday.”
Randazza – who last week suggested the councilmembers should do “what an adult would do” and shrug it off – said Feldman is seeking help from mental health professionals.
“This event has forced him to confront his impulse control issues,” the statement said. “After consulting with professionals, friends, and family, he recognizes that he has a problem and that that problem has hurt other people – not just in this circumstance, but in multiple occasions in the past.”
Source
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2016/05/09/attorney-admits-emails-to-female-city.html
Fucktard Hypocritical Mean, Evil Marc Randazza says do what an adult should do and shrug it off??? WOW WTF? Marc Randazza ruined massive lives, sued so many people, threatened us, ruined our lives or relationships or reputations, harassed us, attacked us, demeaned us, exposed our private lives, gave out our home address and more private information, stole massive intellectual property, incited massive hate against us, and all we did was call his wife a slut and make fun of him, and buy a few domain names. WHY DIDN'T Marc Randazza JUST ACT LIKE AN ADULT AND SHRUG IT OFF?
Source
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/05/12/end-yourselves-councilwomen-threatened-after-voting-against-seattles-nba-arena/
Oh ya Marc Randazza clients can email whatever they want. But if Crystal Cox emails an attorney, acting as her own attorney, in a PRIVATE CONFIDENTIAL settlement agreement, then that is EXTORTION and Marc Randazza shouts from every rooftop and in every big media that will listen that she is an Extortionist. And he published my private email in mass, knowing it was being painted in false light as he had acted as my attorney. That private email was made to be EVIL and Randazza can ruin lives, flat out lie about whoever he wants, threaten people and say whatever LIE he wants and that is ok, legal and ethical??
But oh yeah my client is abusive, and an asshole like me but he is sorry, so sorry.
FUCK You Marc Randazza. IT IS NOT ok for you to RUIN LIVES with your LIES. Why do you still have a license to represent clients?? WOW.
"Attorney admits emails to female city councilmembers were 'abusive,' apologizes"
"“He has come to realize that his reactions, and the communications he sent, were over the top, and that his tendency to this kind of behavior is a long-standing problem,” said Marc J. Randazza, a First Amendment attorney who represents Jason M. Feldman, in a statement. “He unequivocally apologizes to the recipients of his abusive comments.”
Source of this Marc Randazza, Hyprocrite ASSHOLE Attorney quote
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2016/05/09/attorney-admits-emails-to-female-city.html
"“As women, I understand that you spend a lot of your time trying to please others (mostly on your knees) but I can only hope that you each find ways to quickly and painfully end yourselves,” the email said. “Each of you should rot in hell for what you took from me yesterday.”
Randazza – who last week suggested the councilmembers should do “what an adult would do” and shrug it off – said Feldman is seeking help from mental health professionals.
“This event has forced him to confront his impulse control issues,” the statement said. “After consulting with professionals, friends, and family, he recognizes that he has a problem and that that problem has hurt other people – not just in this circumstance, but in multiple occasions in the past.”
Source
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2016/05/09/attorney-admits-emails-to-female-city.html
Fucktard Hypocritical Mean, Evil Marc Randazza says do what an adult should do and shrug it off??? WOW WTF? Marc Randazza ruined massive lives, sued so many people, threatened us, ruined our lives or relationships or reputations, harassed us, attacked us, demeaned us, exposed our private lives, gave out our home address and more private information, stole massive intellectual property, incited massive hate against us, and all we did was call his wife a slut and make fun of him, and buy a few domain names. WHY DIDN'T Marc Randazza JUST ACT LIKE AN ADULT AND SHRUG IT OFF?
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
"Mr. Randazza permitted and encouraged his children to have warm personal relationships with Mr. Gideon, who they called "Uncle."
Marc Randazza put's on a great act that he has concern for his children and who has access to them, yet this court ruling sure paints Marc Randazza as someone who is not acting very "fatherly" in an ethical manner as far as I see it. Uncle Gideon.
"Prior to and subsequent to agreeing to go "in house" as E/L's general counsel, Mr. Randazza was outside counsel to several companies engaged in Internet pornography, including videos and stills available on openly homosexual websites.
Since at least the date of the commencement of his employment as E/L's inside general counsel through his last day of E/L employment, Mr. Randazza knew of and was not in any way uncomfortable with Mr. Gideon's gay sexual orientation --- which was also that of most, but not all, of E/L's other executives --- and the frequent seasoning of business and socially- related conversation and written communications with crude gay and other sexual terms, references and allusions, which Mr. Randazza also used.
Mr. Randazza was not embarrassed to be seen or filmed in full undress at a poolside business-social event at Mr. Gideon's home. Mr. Randazza permitted and encouraged his children to have warm personal relationships with Mr. Gideon, who they called "Uncle."
L. The evidence was that the only complaints which Mr. Randazza had concerning the pornographic filming in his offices in April 2012 --- four months before the end of his employment--- were that (1) he was not given the courtesy of advance notice of the shoot and (2) after the shoot was completed, Mr. Randazza's office was not restored to just the way it had been before the office was prepped for filming.
The preponderance of disputed evidence was not that Mr. Randazza complained to Mr. Gideon centering on or in any way reasonably relating to sexual discrimination or harassment or a hostile work environment based on sex, including "male-on-male" sex, which has been recognized as a basis
for a legal claim.
Accordingly, allegedly involuntary termination of Mr. Randazza's employment, based on Mr. Randazza's April 2012 complaint about the filming of pornography in his office --- which did not constitute statutorily "protected activity" --- is not includible as a component for a statutory claim that he had been fired in retaliation for making that complaint.
Mr. Randazza's complaint about the allegedly personally offensive oral copulation of Mr. Gideon in the back seat of his car on August 9, 2012 was not genuinely or deeply felt and was made primarily for tactical reasons. Therefore, the end of Mr. Randazza's employment was not and was not the product of anything retaliatory, in violation of public policy (e.g., engaging in protected activity), as a matter of law."
Source and Full Document
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiY1FuY1JaTTlCYm8/view
"Prior to and subsequent to agreeing to go "in house" as E/L's general counsel, Mr. Randazza was outside counsel to several companies engaged in Internet pornography, including videos and stills available on openly homosexual websites.
Since at least the date of the commencement of his employment as E/L's inside general counsel through his last day of E/L employment, Mr. Randazza knew of and was not in any way uncomfortable with Mr. Gideon's gay sexual orientation --- which was also that of most, but not all, of E/L's other executives --- and the frequent seasoning of business and socially- related conversation and written communications with crude gay and other sexual terms, references and allusions, which Mr. Randazza also used.
Mr. Randazza was not embarrassed to be seen or filmed in full undress at a poolside business-social event at Mr. Gideon's home. Mr. Randazza permitted and encouraged his children to have warm personal relationships with Mr. Gideon, who they called "Uncle."
L. The evidence was that the only complaints which Mr. Randazza had concerning the pornographic filming in his offices in April 2012 --- four months before the end of his employment--- were that (1) he was not given the courtesy of advance notice of the shoot and (2) after the shoot was completed, Mr. Randazza's office was not restored to just the way it had been before the office was prepped for filming.
The preponderance of disputed evidence was not that Mr. Randazza complained to Mr. Gideon centering on or in any way reasonably relating to sexual discrimination or harassment or a hostile work environment based on sex, including "male-on-male" sex, which has been recognized as a basis
for a legal claim.
Accordingly, allegedly involuntary termination of Mr. Randazza's employment, based on Mr. Randazza's April 2012 complaint about the filming of pornography in his office --- which did not constitute statutorily "protected activity" --- is not includible as a component for a statutory claim that he had been fired in retaliation for making that complaint.
Mr. Randazza's complaint about the allegedly personally offensive oral copulation of Mr. Gideon in the back seat of his car on August 9, 2012 was not genuinely or deeply felt and was made primarily for tactical reasons. Therefore, the end of Mr. Randazza's employment was not and was not the product of anything retaliatory, in violation of public policy (e.g., engaging in protected activity), as a matter of law."
Source and Full Document
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiY1FuY1JaTTlCYm8/view
Successfully concluded negotiations for a BRIBE to be paid to Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group.
"The precipitating events which led to the end of Mr. Randazza's employment was Mr. Gideon's having first learned on August 13, 2012 that Mr. Randazza had been involved in and successfully concluded negotiations for a bribe in the amount of $75,000, to be paid to Mr. Randazza by the other side in connection with resolution of high-importance litigation, commonly referred to as the "Oron litigation," which had been initiated and pursued on behalf of E/L by Mr. Randazza, as E/L's counsel of record."
"1. A sudden and significant reduction of those previously primarily electronic (i.e., email and text) communications --- beginning only after Mr. Gideon learned of the $75,000 bribe --- with Mr. Randazza sending Mr. Gideon unresponded-to emails attempting to attempting to salvage and revive his communications and relationship
2. Mr. Randazza beat a hasty retreat, in an attempt to salvage the situation by offering to pay the bribe money over to E/L, when initially confronted by Mr. Gideon concerning the bribe provision in the Oron settlement agreement, presented for Mr. Gideon."
"The Arbitrator has determined, based on the evidence, that Mr. Randazza solicited the bribe in the first instance, attempted to negotiate with Oron's counsel ways and means whereby it would be concealed from and not become known by E/L, and disclosed it to E/L, per Mr. Gideon, for the first time only on August 13, 2012, when the settlement documentation prepared and presented for Mr. Gideon's signature on behalf of E/L by Oron's counsel surfaced a $75,000 retainer payment to Mr. Randazza.
The Arbitrator has further determined that E/L never gave Mr. Randazza permission or consent to solicit, negotiate or accept the $75,000 bribe,* or any bribe or any other payment other than payment of all proceeds being solely for deposited to the account of his clients/principals, E/L."
Source and Full Document / Cour Motion;
Marc Randazza took a Bribe, why is he still practicing law?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiY1FuY1JaTTlCYm8/view
"1. A sudden and significant reduction of those previously primarily electronic (i.e., email and text) communications --- beginning only after Mr. Gideon learned of the $75,000 bribe --- with Mr. Randazza sending Mr. Gideon unresponded-to emails attempting to attempting to salvage and revive his communications and relationship
2. Mr. Randazza beat a hasty retreat, in an attempt to salvage the situation by offering to pay the bribe money over to E/L, when initially confronted by Mr. Gideon concerning the bribe provision in the Oron settlement agreement, presented for Mr. Gideon."
"The Arbitrator has determined, based on the evidence, that Mr. Randazza solicited the bribe in the first instance, attempted to negotiate with Oron's counsel ways and means whereby it would be concealed from and not become known by E/L, and disclosed it to E/L, per Mr. Gideon, for the first time only on August 13, 2012, when the settlement documentation prepared and presented for Mr. Gideon's signature on behalf of E/L by Oron's counsel surfaced a $75,000 retainer payment to Mr. Randazza.
The Arbitrator has further determined that E/L never gave Mr. Randazza permission or consent to solicit, negotiate or accept the $75,000 bribe,* or any bribe or any other payment other than payment of all proceeds being solely for deposited to the account of his clients/principals, E/L."
Source and Full Document / Cour Motion;
Marc Randazza took a Bribe, why is he still practicing law?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiY1FuY1JaTTlCYm8/view
Marc Randazza DMCA Notice Used to Chill Speech. Marc Randazza ABUSING Copyright Law, Trademark Law and whatever it takes to Suppress SPEECH he don't like.
"2/1-2/3/2016 Update: I received a DMCA notice from XBiz today for the pdf of the original article. Looks like Randazza is abusing copyright law once again, but this time as a censorship tool. Not wise. Although, after the amazing WordPress/Automattic legal department’s involvement, XBiz/Randazza withdrew the demand, I decided not to reinstate the pdf in question: the point was not the entire article, but the deleted paragraphs, which are already preserved for posterity here:
Also, the title of the original article was “Corbin Fisher Awarded $600K; Randazza to Challenge Interim Arbitration Decision.” Now the site shows only “Corbin Fisher Awarded $600K.”
Source and Full Article
https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2015/07/09/marc-randazza-must-pay-600k-for-clear-and-serious-breaches-of-fiduciary-duty-against-his-former-client/
Source and Full Article
https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2015/07/09/marc-randazza-must-pay-600k-for-clear-and-serious-breaches-of-fiduciary-duty-against-his-former-client/
Marc Randazza and Jennifer Randazza have NO CASE against Crystal Cox or Eliot Bernstein. And they NEVER had a case. Yet they managed to STEAL massive online content and search engine placement and to redirect that intellectual property to hate sites and defamatory sites about the defendants they sued. This is NOT OK, NOT Ethical and Not Legal. But WOW now there is precedent so you too can STEAL Domain Names, SEO, Search Engine Placement, Intellectual Property and Online Speech you don't Like.
Read the DENIAL of the Summary Judgement which CLEARLY Shows that Marc Randazza and Jennifer Randazza have NO Case against Blogger Crystal L. Cox or iViewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein
http://ia800304.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020140411A31/RANDAZZA%20v.%20COX
AND
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiTGt4dEdQXzV0aE0/view
I put a few links to the same document, because Marc Randazza's CRONIES change links to CHILL SPEECH and alter reality.
Full Docket Marc Randazza, Jennifer Randazza, Babydazza Vs. Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein
http://ia600304.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html
Study Every Document and Filing and LEARN How Unethical Attorneys WORK the SYSTEM, Chill Online Speech, Shut down blogs they don't like, Steal Search Engine Placement, bully and harass litigants
Use the Docket Above to SHUT DOWN ANY Online Speech You don't Like. Just Like the District of Nevada let Marc Randazza and Jennifer Randazza, along with Attorney Ronald Green and their Law Firm Randazza Legal Group and WITH No Liability or Accountability what so ever.
oh and if the people you STEAL from or shut down their speech put up to much of a fight and want to sue you for Liable, for Defamation, for Misrepresentation NO Problem, File for Bankruptcy, to Learn how study the Marc Randazza Bankruptcy Docket and related information.
http://ia601505.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854.docket.html
oh and don't forget if you don't like an online parody about you or a whistleblower or insider exposing you or making fun of you, then you can simply use the Nevada State Courts, check out Randazza vs. Monica Foster, Alexandra Mayers in Clark County Nevada.
http://www.publicfigurestoday.com/tag/clark-county/
http://www.publicfigurestoday.com/2014/05/17/the-lawsuits-alexandra-mayers-aka-monica-foster-is-facing-the-truth-of-the-porn-industry-organized-crime/
http://pornnewstoday.com/pnt/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/statement-attorney-Ronald-D-Green-aka-Jamieprofit-twitter-stalker-UNETHICAL.pdf
http://ia800304.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020140411A31/RANDAZZA%20v.%20COX
AND
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiTGt4dEdQXzV0aE0/view
I put a few links to the same document, because Marc Randazza's CRONIES change links to CHILL SPEECH and alter reality.
Full Docket Marc Randazza, Jennifer Randazza, Babydazza Vs. Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein
http://ia600304.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html
Study Every Document and Filing and LEARN How Unethical Attorneys WORK the SYSTEM, Chill Online Speech, Shut down blogs they don't like, Steal Search Engine Placement, bully and harass litigants
Use the Docket Above to SHUT DOWN ANY Online Speech You don't Like. Just Like the District of Nevada let Marc Randazza and Jennifer Randazza, along with Attorney Ronald Green and their Law Firm Randazza Legal Group and WITH No Liability or Accountability what so ever.
oh and if the people you STEAL from or shut down their speech put up to much of a fight and want to sue you for Liable, for Defamation, for Misrepresentation NO Problem, File for Bankruptcy, to Learn how study the Marc Randazza Bankruptcy Docket and related information.
http://ia601505.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854/gov.uscourts.nvb.348854.docket.html
oh and don't forget if you don't like an online parody about you or a whistleblower or insider exposing you or making fun of you, then you can simply use the Nevada State Courts, check out Randazza vs. Monica Foster, Alexandra Mayers in Clark County Nevada.
http://www.publicfigurestoday.com/tag/clark-county/
http://www.publicfigurestoday.com/2014/05/17/the-lawsuits-alexandra-mayers-aka-monica-foster-is-facing-the-truth-of-the-porn-industry-organized-crime/
http://pornnewstoday.com/pnt/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/statement-attorney-Ronald-D-Green-aka-Jamieprofit-twitter-stalker-UNETHICAL.pdf
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
"What did Frank Barbarino die from, why is he listed on a Randazza Legal Group civil case & who is @GewchiWings ?" Alexandra Mayers aka Monica Foster commentary.
"For a time while I was living in Los Angeles and was an active adult actress in the pornographic industry I knew Frank. I find it incredibly ironic (and telling) to learn that he was one of LAPD’s top boosters. I’ll leave it at that for now…
Why is Frank Barbarino listed on the Register of Actions for case A699072 in Clark County Nevada Civil Court?
Who exactly is twitter alias @GewchiWings and how are they connected to Frank Barbarino?
Source
http://www.pornnewstoday.com/pnt/2016/04/29/what-did-frank-barbarino-die-from-why-is-he-listed-on-a-randazza-legal-group-civil-case-who-is-gewchiwings/
I’m curious as to what Frank Barbarino died from (the writeups don’t seem to mention a cause of death). I’m also curious as to why his name is listed on the Register of Actions for Clark County Civil Case A699072 which was filed against me (and is still Pending) in Las Vegas, Nevada by Randazza Legal Group.
Why is Frank Barbarino listed on the Register of Actions for case A699072 in Clark County Nevada Civil Court?
In addition, I’d like to know who the twitter alias@GewchiWings is exactly and why the individual behind that alias has sent me a multitude of threats since mentioning the name Frank Barbarino on my twitter feed.
Since leaving the Los Angeles porn industry, my primary complaint has been the following: When I signed up to be a pornstar – I had the intention of working as an on camera adult actress. I DID NOT have the intention of modeling in photos and performing in videos that were intended to be used as materials to market me as a “companion” to men such as Frank Barbarino.
I will likely discuss my thoughts on Frank a bit more on the next www.FoxxAndFoster.com webcast.
Who exactly is twitter alias @GewchiWings and how are they connected to Frank Barbarino?
Source
http://www.pornnewstoday.com/pnt/2016/04/29/what-did-frank-barbarino-die-from-why-is-he-listed-on-a-randazza-legal-group-civil-case-who-is-gewchiwings/
Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox Statement of Claims Against Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group.
Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox’s Counterclaims - Brief Nature of Suit
1. Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox’s counterclaims arise out of allegations that her former attorney Marc Randazza owed her certain duties and obligations as a matter of law and ethics. And that he violated those duties in which has caused her irreparable harm of which she is entitled all allowable relief, as a matter of law.
2. Defendant Crystal Cox alleges that Marc Randazza is guilty of malpractice and of defamation.
3. Cox alleges that Marc Randazza violated Slander and Defamation Laws; 28:1332 Diversity-Libel, Assault,Slander and 320 Assault, Libel, and Slander.
4. Cox acknowledges that she is, indeed, a public figure, however, Cox alleges that Randazza defamed Cox maliciously and with full knowledge that what he was saying and publishing was false as a matter of fact. And that as her attorney Randazza owed her a duty as such.
Crystal Cox being a public figure does not protect Randazza as a Defense, as he was her attorney and he has no legal right to knowingly defame Cox.
5. Cox alleges that Marc Randazza used information he gathered as her attorney to cause her harm, and that he did so deliberately with malice.
6. Cox alleges that Marc Randazza posted defamatory statements, with actual malice, to third parties accusing her of the felony crime of extortion and other misconduct in which he knew was false. Randazza knew that Cox had no ruling, no investigation and no adjudicated fact as to her having committed the felony crime of Extortion. Randazza cannot simply say that he defamed Cox because others were doing it.
7. Cox alleges that Marc Randazza violated the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and that this violation caused Cox irreparable harm.
8. Cox alleges that Marc Randazza has painted her in false light to the entire world and that this has branded Cox for life, with no way to recover.
9. Cox alleges that Marc Randazza was negligent in his defamatory statements to 3rd parties with malice and that he was negligent as having been her former attorney.
Summary of Evidence that supports my, Cox’s, theory
DEFAMATION / SLANDER Claims
1. Cox alleges that Marc Randazza defamed her.
2. Cox alleges that Randazza KNEW that what he was posting online and swearing to WIPO, and telling NPR, Forbes, the New York Times and various legal bloggers and attorneys, was false. Therefore, Cox claims that Randazza had actual malice and that, as a matter of law Cox is entitled to all allowable relief, per law, as to his stating Cox is an Extortionist and that Cox had a blog about his infant child of which Cox had no such blog.
Randazza made this defamatory statements up and stated these to third parties such as and not limited to Forbes, the New York Times, NPR and many other online publications and legal blogs, as well as in sworn statements to WIPO, and that he did so with malice and with full knowledge that what he was saying and post was and is false.
Randazza also posted on his personal blog that Cox had attacked his infant child and that Cox had a blog about his child, of which this deliberate false statements and postings have caused Cox irreparable harm of which she is entitled all allowable relief as a matter of law. Cox never had a blog about Randazza’s infant child and this statement has caused serious backlash in Cox’s life.
3. Cox claims that she is entitled to stated relief and does not have to proof actual damages.
4. Cox claims that Exhibit 21 shows that after Cox had fired Randazza and continued on solely with Eugene Volokh as her representation in her Ninth Circuit appeal, Randazza emailed her and offered to be of any help to her in the future that she may need.
Yet when Cox emailed Randazza some time later asking for help, Randazza retaliated against Cox and told the world that the email was extortion.
Exhibit 21 proves that Randazza defamed Cox with intent, willfully, wanton, and maliciously. Even after claiming, offering, to be of any kind of help to his former client Crystal Cox.
Exhibit 21 shows that On December 16th 2011 at 12:55 PM Randazza says he has no issue with Cox firing him and he offers to help Cox in the future in anyway he can.
Exhibit 21 shows that Marc Randazza claimed to respect Cox, he apologized if she felt not treated well and said the following: "People like you are important for the future of citizen journalism, and I wish to see you succeed."
Yet Randazza painted Cox in false light to the entire world, and even in sworn statements claiming that she had extorted him and was guilty of the felony crime of extortion. And that she had attacked his infant child.
Marc Randazza did not file a criminal complaint regarding his felony extortion allegation. Randazza, instead, used his media and legal connections to paint me, Cox, as guilty for the crime of extortion.
Randazza violated Cox’s rights of due process and her constitutional rights. Randazza deliberately, with full knowledge of it being false, defamed me, Crystal Cox, and made false statements to third parties around the world. Including and not limited to NPR, Forbes, the New York Times, Legal and Fraud Experts, WIPO (international publications, domain names and intellectual property law), and he used his knowledge of First Amendment Law, and his connection to legal bloggers and big and small media to paint me, Cox, out as a criminal worldwide.
Cox claims that Randazza owed her a duty to keep her email asking him for help private and a duty to not do anything adverse to Cox. Cox claims that Randazza was negligent and unlawful when he then embarked on a 3 years and counting, campaign to maliciously harass, intimidate, sue, lie to courts and media and ruin her life, family, relationships, business, reputation and quality of life.
Cox claims she relied on what her former attorney said about her case, her best interest moving forward, and that he would follow through with what was her wishes for her case.
Cox claims she relied on her former attorneys word offering help to her even if in the background. Yet when she emailed him, taking him up on that offer. He took that private email and gave it to legal bloggers, courts, WIPO and big and small media widespread, maliciously painting her, Cox, in false light, accusing the email, her as being extortion.
5. Cox claims that Exhibit 17, an email from Randazza to her proves that Randazza had full knowledge that what he was posting about Cox being an extortionist was false.
Exhibit 17 shows an email from Counter Defendant Marc Randazza to Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, in this email you see Randazza stating, "Asking me for a job, or a recommendation? That doesn't bother me in the least."
However, after this Marc Randazza went on NPR, interviewed with Forbes and the New York Times, spoke with a large amount of attorneys who blog about legal cases, spoke with the New York times, made sworn statement in court and to WIPO, and posted on his own blog that Crystal Cox was guilty of extorting him. Though he clearly stated that Cox was asking him for a job.
The email that these sites and Randazza’s legal blog used, claiming it was extortion, was the very same email as seen in Exhibit 17 whereby it is clear that Marc Randazza himself believed that Cox was only asking for a job and not committing the felony crime of extortion.
Yet with full knowledge that the statements he was making were false, Marc Randazza painted Cox in false light to the entire world as extortionate and stated that Cox had extorted him. Even though Exhibit 17 clearly shows that he knew Cox was not attempting to harm or intimidate him or his family in any way. But that Cox was only asking for a job and that he did not mind her asking for a job.
Exhibit 17 shows that Marc Randazza is offended and perhaps even mad, however it clearly shows that Randazza believed that Cox was ONLY asking for a job. Yet he spent the next 3 years and counting, publishing and making false statements to all manner of media and swearing to those false statements to courts and WIPO, knowing full well that what he was saying was not factual.
Therefore, Cox alleges that Randazza instituted a world wide defamatory campaign against Cox to retaliate against her for firing him in her infamous Landmark Ninth Circuit, First Amendment Case Obsidian v. Cox.
Cox alleges that this has ruined her life, affected what the Ninth Circuit Judges said, as they quoted the New York Times as proof of Cox’s alleged behavior. Cox’s former attorney, Randazza painted the picture to the media, judges, attorneys, NPR and essentially the world that Crystal Cox was guilty of the felony crime of extortion. Of which he had not filed a criminal complaint, had not filed an attorney general complaint and had no adjudicated fact that Cox had engaged in any sort of extortionate behavior at any time ever.
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 simply asking for a job.
This Exhibit 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.
Cox alleges that this violates defamation, slander and libel laws and that she is due all allowable relief as a matter of law.
6. 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 maliciously paint Cox in false light, deliberately not posting the whole email thread which showed that Randazza CLEARLY knew Cox was asking for a job, and not trying to extort him in ANY way..
Therefore because Cox would not simply turn over a domain name he thought she had no right to own, and had fired him in her landmark First Amendment case, 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.
This has led to discrimination and further retaliation against inventor Eliot Bernstein in his ongoing estate cases in Florida and his RICO case in the New York Courts.
show false and defamatory statements made by Randazza on his blog and to widespread legal bloggers, attorneys and other media.
Cox Claims she is entitled to relief for the damage Randazza has caused her.
9. Exhibit 18a shows that Randazza was working with Cox as a potential client, which under Nevada Law / Rule 1.18. Duties to Prospective Client. Exhibit 18a also shows that Randazza had enlisted Portland Lawyer Lake Perriguey to assist in the Oregon law part of the case with him.
10. Exhibit 2 shows a WIPO decision based only on the false sworn statements of Cox’s former attorney Marc Randazza. Cox claims this is defamatory against her and inventor Eliot Bernstein.
MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
1. Cox claims she relied on the legal advice of Marc Randazza.
Randazza, my former attorney obstructed my justice, violated my due process rights and my constitutional rights. Marc Randazza was negligent in his legal representation of me, Crystal Cox and severely negligent in his duty of care, ethics and actions to harm me for years after my appeal, where he represented me. This negligence cause me injury, defamed me, caused me irreparable harm, rendered my homeless, penniless and incited world wide hate against me.
Cox claims that as a matter of law and ethics, a lawyer shall use tactics that are legal, honest and respectful of courts and yet Randazza deliberately lied to the courts to paint her in false light, to ruin her life and business, and to sever her family and business connections.
Cox claims that Randazza used his clout, legal knowledge and credibility to abuse her, violate her due process rights, violate her constitutional rights and completely destroy her life, business, reputation and personal relations with deliberate intent and full knowledge of what he was portraying about Cox was not true. As the record clearly shows, Randazza himself did not even belief it, as Exhibit 17 clearly shows, he knew full well that Cox ONLY asking for a job, and that he told Cox he did not mind that.
A lawyer shall act with integrity and professionalism, maintaining his overarching responsibility to ensure civil conduct. Yet Randazza clearly did not do this.
A lawyer's duty to the court relates to his status as a professional who serves, not only clients, potential clients and former clients but also the public interest. Historically, a professional was distinguished from a tradesperson by a public declaration – demonstrated today by the oath taken at admission to the Bar – to serve others and devote their intellect and efforts to the public good. Marc Randazza clearly failed in his duty to Cox, the court and the public.
Cox claims that with this Randazza has caused her irreparable harm and that she is due all allowable relief available to her as a matter of law.
A lawyer's duty to the court also relates to the profession's independence, or what
has been described as "the high degree of autonomy that lawyers experience from external controls other than those imposed by self-regulation." Self-regulation is a privilege that comes with substantial obligations that are intended to protect the rights of individuals.
Randazza clearly has not maintained integrity as an officer of the court, but instead has used his power in the courts to retaliate against those whom he has a personal issue with or those who exercise their Free Speech rights and speak critical of him or his wife, as is our First Amendment Right.
Marc Randazza has used the power the courts have give him to issue false subpoena, scare and bully people into giving privileged, private information, and to file legal actions to use money, reputation and other tactics to force those he sues, litigants (targets) into taking whatever action he is trying to force them into, be it a settlement, removing gripe sites, taking down parody or graphics that poke fun at him, report on his cases representing the porn industry or really anything he disapproves of. And this has caused Cox harm.
The duty to the court is also important because there are consequences for lawyers
who do not uphold it. This is demonstrated by the penalties attached to civil and criminal
contempt.
A lawyer has a duty to use tactics that are legal, honest and respectful. This duty
is often referred to as the duty of candour. Under this umbrella of a lawyer's duty to the court, lawyers are primarily responsible for ensuring that they do not employ strategies that will mislead the court; this includes misleading the court on evidentiary and legal points as well as making use of tactical strategies that are likely to affect a case.
Cox claims that Randazza deliberately gave many courts, media, legal bloggers, NPR, Forbes, New York Times, WIPO and more, false information, false sworn statement of facts and he deliberately gave the courts false information regarding Cox, his former client and did so in his wife's case through his law firm, against porn industry whistleblower Alexandra Mayers, as well.
Lawyers must respect the court. Respect comes in all forms – preparedness and timeliness are one aspect of consideration. Being familiar with the facts and law applicable to your case, and knowing your client's position is the most fundamental display of respect for the court process. This duty to the court is, in effect, an overlapping duty of competency we have to the client. A lawyer should not abuse the court process. A lawyer should not unreasonably raise or defend an action for which there is no legal justification.
Cox claims that Randazza sued her to bully her, intimidate her and suppress her speech. Cox claims that Randazza abused the court process with no real legal justification, and that this caused her irreparable harm.
Cox claims that Randazza knew her position in her appeal, yet went against her wishes and behind her back to strike a deal that would be good for the future and at that time current cases of his other clients, the large porn companies he represented. With this he completely violated her rights of dues process and duties owed to Cox as his former client, potential client, or current client.
Attorney Marc Randazza clearly disrespected the court process and, in his arrogance and disrespect of the court and the laws, completely violated Cox’s rights as a former client, a litigant and a U.S. citizen.
When dealing with others, a lawyer shall be courteous, civil and act in good faith with all persons with whom he deals with during the course of practice. Yet Marc Randazza incited world wide hate against me, filed Amicus Briefs, went on NPR, filed sworn statements, spoke to big and small media and maliciously, deliberately with willful and wanton intent incited hated, spread defamatory malicious lies, and did not act civil, not courteous and NOT in good faith.
A lawyer's duty of civility extends to those individuals who are integral to our legal process – such as witnesses. Yet Marc Randazza threatened, bullied, sued, and maliciously attacked my church, those I worked for, ex's, those I minister to and did not act with civility at all.
Marc Randazza owed me a ''standard of care'' in which he clearly breached.
Legal Malpractice is a breach by an attorney in the standard of care or in the standard of conduct that is applicable to all attorneys. Clearly Randazza breached his standard of care in regard to his former client Crystal Cox.
Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct Randazza Violated
CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP
Randazza did not abide by my decisions concerning representation. He did not consult with me before proposing a deal allegedly on my behalf and in my best interest with the opposition, and he sought EXTREME retaliation when I chose to longer have him represent me as his client. This is a Violation of Rule 1.2.
Randazza did not abide by my wishes of wanting to appeal and pursued a settlement with the opposition of which he did not include me in the details of this negotiation.
Randazza acted in representations of Cox, without informed consent. And therefore violated Rule 1.2
Randazza did not discuss with me any actions that he thought I may have taken that he thought were criminal, of which, as my attorney he is obligated to. Instead he used his power over the courts and his clout with the media to defame me, and abuse me massive stress and irreparable harm.
If he thought I engaged in any criminal activity, it was his lawful and ethical duty to discuss this with me, instead of simply tell the world and the courts I was guilty of a crime with no adjudication or due process.
Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer.
(a) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter.
(b) A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.
(c) A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
Rule 1.5. Fees.
Randazza violated rule 1.5 as he told me he was representing me for FREE, Pro Bono, then he turned around and wanted money to travel, to file documents, for hotels and more. Knowing full well that I had NO MONEY.
Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of Information.
Attorney Marc Randazza revealed ALL of my private information, strategy and secrets, not only to the opposition without informed consent but to the entire world. This has caused me irreparable harm of which I am entitled to financial relief.
I, Crystal Cox, Claim that Randazza violated Rule 1.5 in revealing my information without informed consent as the chronology above clearly shows.
Randazza also violated Rule 1.5 in putting me in physical harm, inciting hate among his peers and the world. And encouraging threats, harassment and online attacks of me. As well as physical threats of coming to my town, of taking out my knee caps, text threatening of knowing where I live and more.
Randazza published my home address to the world and used court motions to attack me, then gave those to media to defame me and expose my personal information and home address to the world. All the while claiming I had harmed an infant child, lying about me and inciting world wide HATE.
Also under this rule, if he thought I had committed a crime then he went about handling it, completely unethical and in violation of my due process rights.
Randazza did not make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client. Therefore he violated Rule 1.5.
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by paragraphs (b) and (d).
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) To prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) To prevent the client from committing a criminal or fraudulent act in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services, but the lawyer shall, where practicable, first make reasonable effort to persuade the client to take suitable action;
(3) To prevent, mitigate, or rectify the consequences of a client’s criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer’s services have been or are being used, but the lawyer shall, where practicable, first make reasonable effort to persuade the client to take corrective action;
(4) To secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;
(5) To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client; or
(6) To comply with other law or a court order.
(7) To detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer’s change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client.
(c) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.
(d) A lawyer shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.
Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients.
If Randazza had a conflict of interest or felt that Cox was a criminal and did not want to represent her, me, then he should not have done so. Instead of getting her private information, strategy and secrets and then ruining her life, as details above, clearly show.
It is also a conflict of interest for Randazza Legal Group to represent Marc Randazza in suing his former client in the District of Nevada Randazza v. Cox case, as this law firm represented Cox and had a duty and obligation to her before representing another party to sue her, even if that party was one of their partners or own attorneys.
Randazza should not have sued me, nor represented himself doing so with the same law firm that represented me prior.
Rule 1.7 was clearly violated by Randazza
Rule 1.7
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(1) The representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) There is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
(1) The lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) The representation is not prohibited by law;
(3) The representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and
(4) Each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing
Rule 1.8. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules.
Attorney Marc Randazza should not have engaged in any activity adverse to me, Crystal Cox, his former client and as seen above he engaged in many.
(a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:
(1) The transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client;
(2) The client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction; and
(3) The client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer’s role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction.
(b) A lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client unless the client gives informed consent, except as permitted or required by these Rules.
(d) Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a lawyer shall not make or negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary or media rights to a portrayal or account based in substantial part on information relating to the representation.
(e) A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, except that:
(1) A lawyer may advance court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter; and
(2) A lawyer representing an indigent client may pay court costs and expenses of litigation on behalf of the client.
(f) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:
(1) The client gives informed consent;
(2) There is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and
(3) Information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by Rule 1.6.
(g) A lawyer who represents two or more clients shall not participate in making an aggregate settlement of the claims of or against the clients, or in a criminal case an aggregated agreement as to guilty or nolo contendere pleas, unless each client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client. The lawyer’s disclosure shall include the existence and nature of all the claims or pleas involved and of the participation of each person in the settlement.
(h) A lawyer shall not:
(1) Make an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer’s liability to a client for malpractice unless the client is independently represented in making the agreement; or
(2) Settle a claim or potential claim for such liability with an unrepresented client or former client unless that person is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel in connection therewith.
(i) A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client, except that the lawyer may:
(1) Acquire a lien authorized by law to secure the lawyer’s fee or expenses; and
(2) Contract with a client for a reasonable contingent fee in a civil case.
(l) A lawyer shall not stand as security for costs or as surety on any appearance, appeal, or other bond or surety in any case in which the lawyer is counsel.
(m) While lawyers are associated in a firm, a prohibition in the foregoing paragraphs, with the exception of paragraph (j), that applies to any one of them shall apply to all of them.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Attorney Marc Randazza stole my intellectual property, defamed me intentionally and maliciously, and caused me serious hardship.
Marc Randazza did not have a contract where he lined out any fees, yet he expected me to pay for things of which I had no real understanding and claimed to be representing me Pro Bono, for FREE.
Marc Randazza used private information, privileged information against me.
Marc Randazza had no right to portray me to the media as he did.
Marc Randazza also violated the above rule in trying to negotiate deals, settlement and representation matters WITHOUT my consent or knowledge. I CLEARLY did not give Marc Randazza informed consent.
Marc Randazza violated Rule 1.8 in massive widespread conflicts of interest.
Rule 1.9. Duties to Former Clients.
Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group represented me in pretty much the same issues exactly as RLG then represented Marc Randazza in claims as a Plaintiff against me. This is a violation of this rule.
Marc Randazza and his law firm acted materially adverse to my interests. And did so with full knowledge and deliberate intent. This violates Rule 1.9
Marc Randazza used inside and privileged information he gained while representing me, against me to sue me. Which violates Rule 1.9.
Marc Randazza used information against me to my disadvantage. Which violates this rule.
Marc Randazza acquired protected information from me then used this to defame me, set me up for a crime, paint me out to the world as a criminal, sue me, take my blogs and intellectual property, interfere with my appeal, violated my due process laws, violated my constitutional rights, suppress my speech, harass, bully and defame me and my sources and to try and STOP my Ninth Circuit appeal against my will and my rights. This violates Rule 1.6 and 1.9.
Marc Randazza revealed information about me, without my informed consent.
(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client:
(1) Whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and
(2) About whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter;
(3) Unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
(1) Use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or
(2) Reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.
Rule 1.10. Imputation of Conflicts of Interest.
Marc Randazza and his law firm RLG violated 1.10 in representing, Marc Randazza and his wife and child in suing me, Crystal Cox, their former client.
(a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7, 1.9, or 2.2, unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.
(b) When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client represented by the formerly associated lawyer and not currently represented by the firm unless:
(1) The matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and
(2) Any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter.
(c) A disqualification prescribed by this Rule may be waived by the affected client under the conditions stated in Rule 1.7.
(d) Reserved.
(e) When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, no lawyer associated in the firm shall knowingly represent a person in a matter in which that lawyer is disqualified under Rule 1.9 unless:
(1) The personally disqualified lawyer did not have a substantial role in or primary responsibility for the matter that causes the disqualification under Rule 1.9;
(2) The personally disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
(3) Written notice is promptly given to any affected former client to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Rule 1.12. Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator or Other Third-Party Neutral.
Even if Marc Randazza did not believe he represented me, which he falsely claims, then he was at least acting as an arbitrator, mediator or other third party neutral in his counseling me, Crystal Cox, via phone and email, his email saying he would represent me, his negotiations with the opposition and his communications acting as my attorney with Eugene Volokh.
Which violates Rule 1.12.
(a) Except as stated in paragraph (d), a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer, or law clerk to such a person or as an arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral, unless all parties to the proceeding give informed consent confirmed in writing.
(b) A lawyer shall not negotiate for employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer, or as an arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral. A lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge or other adjudicative officer may negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer involved in a matter in which the clerk is participating personally and substantially, but only after the lawyer has notified the judge or other adjudicative officer.
(c) If a lawyer is disqualified by paragraph (a), no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in the matter unless:
(1) The disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
(2) Written notice is promptly given to the parties and any appropriate tribunal to enable them to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule.
(d) An arbitrator selected as a partisan of a party in a multi-member arbitration panel is not prohibited from subsequently representing that party.
Rule 1.18. Duties to Prospective Client.
Marc Randazza claims in sworn statements that he was not my attorney. Yet he emailed me that he would take representation, he attempted to broker deals, he advised me on the phone and in emails about court transcripts, he told many attorneys he represented me, he discussed filing court motions with attorney Eugene Volokh, and counseled me on my case.
Therefore it is no excuse to have harmed me, defamed me, interfered with my business and personal relationships, only because he thought he was not acting as my attorney prior. Clearly he owed me the same standard of care as a potential client. And Marc Randazza knew this full well as a seasoned attorney with his own law firm and in multiple states.
Marc Randazza violated Rule 1.18 and did not have my informed consent for his disclosure of my private emails, negotiation tactics, strategy, nor to provide information that caused me harm. And to do so deliberately with malicious intent.
Mr. Randazza claims, under oath, that he was not my attorney. I fully believe he was. However, if he were to convince this board that he was not my attorney, then clearly he was brokering deals allegedly on my behalf, clearly he was working with other attorneys (Eugene Volokh) and with the courts to file a motion for a new trial, as the email evidence shows, and in this was at least a third party neutral, a mediator, or I was a potential client. In that he owed me a duty to not harm me, not post my private emails to him, not paint me out to the world to be a criminal with no adjudicated facts, not offer to testify against me, not file amicus briefs in opposition to my best interest, not lie about me and defame me, protect my rights and strategy in my case, and act with integrity as to my best interest.
If Randazza was not my attorney, then he was negotiating with the opposition, giving them my secrets, strategy, strengths and weakness without authorization from me.
Rule 1.18
(a) A person who consults with a lawyer about 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 learned information from a prospective client shall not use or reveal that information, 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.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006; as amended; effective April 4, 2014.]
COUNSELOR
Rule 2.1. Advisor.
Marc Randazza violated Rule 2. Even if Marc Randazza was NOT my attorney as he claims in court, then he was at the very east my counselor. Marc Randazza counseled me on my case, and yet turned around and deliberate caused me malicious, willful, wanton harm.
If not a counselor then at least an Advisor, Third Party Neutral or an Intermediary. And still owed me a duty of care, in which he clearly violated.
Rule 2.1. Advisor. In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client’s situation.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Rule 2.1 (former Supreme Court Rule 167) is the same as ABA Model Rule 2.1.
Rule 2.2. Intermediary.
(a) A lawyer may act as intermediary between clients if:
(1) The lawyer consults with each client concerning the implications of the common representation, including the advantages and risks involved, and the effect on the attorney-client privileges, and obtains each client’s consent to the common representation;
(2) The lawyer reasonably believes that the matter can be resolved on terms compatible with the clients’ best interests, that each client will be able to make adequately informed decisions in the matter and that there is little risk of material prejudice to the interests of any of the clients if the contemplated resolution is unsuccessful; and
(3) The lawyer reasonably believes that the common representation can be undertaken impartially and without improper effect on other responsibilities the lawyer has to any of the clients.
(b) While acting as intermediary, the lawyer shall consult with each client concerning the decisions to be made and the considerations relevant in making them, so that each client can make adequately informed decisions.
(c) A lawyer shall withdraw as intermediary if any of the clients so requests, or if any of the conditions stated in subsection 1 is no longer satisfied. Upon withdrawal, the lawyer shall not continue to represent any of the clients in the matter that was the subject of the intermediation.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Model Rule Comparison—2006
Rule 2.2 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 168) is based on 1983 Model Rule 2.2. The ABA House of Delegates deleted Model Rule 2.2 and incorporated it into the comments to Model Rule 1.7 in 2002. The Rule has been retained in Nevada because Nevada has not adopted comments to the Rules and the Rule provides some guidance in clarifying conflict of interest concerns.
Rule 2.3. Evaluation for Use by Third Persons.
(a) A lawyer may provide an evaluation of a matter affecting a client for the use of someone other than the client if the lawyer reasonably believes that making the evaluation is compatible with other aspects of the lawyer’s relationship with the client.
(b) When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the evaluation is likely to affect the client’s interests materially and adversely, the lawyer shall not provide the evaluation unless the client gives informed consent.
(c) Except as disclosure is authorized in connection with a report of an evaluation, information relating to the evaluation is otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Model Rule Comparison—2006
Rule 2.3 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 169) is the same as ABA Model Rule 2.3.
Rule 2.4. Lawyer Serving as Third-Party Neutral.
(a) A lawyer serves as a third-party neutral when the lawyer assists two or more persons who are not clients of the lawyer to reach a resolution of a dispute or other matter that has arisen between them. Service as a third-party neutral may include service as an arbitrator, a mediator or in such other capacity as will enable the lawyer to assist the parties to resolve the matter.
(b) A lawyer serving as a third-party neutral shall inform unrepresented parties that the lawyer is not representing them. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that a party does not understand the lawyer’s role in the matter, the lawyer shall explain the difference between the lawyer’s role as a third-party neutral and a lawyer’s role as one who represents a client.
ADVOCATE
Marc Randazza acted as my advocate. He spoke with other attorneys, my colleagues, and he told me that people like me are important. He was an advocate for me and turned around and acted with contention, revenge and retaliation. Marc Randazza sued me in a frivolous, life altering oppressive lawsuit. He violated my First Amendment Rights, my rights of due process and acted in extreme against my best interest.
Marc Randazza put me in danger, rendered me homeless and with no way to rent a home nor to get clients and resume my life. as he painted me out as a scammer, and a felony criminal extortionist to the world. Therefore no one would hire me, rent to me and I lost all business and personal connections.
Marc Randazza violated Rule 3.1 in bringing claims against me. And in attempting to set me up for criminal claims.
Rule 3.1. Meritorious Claims and Contentions. A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.
Marc Randazza violated rule 3.7 in offering to be deposed for the opposition in my appeal case.
Rule 3.7. Lawyer as Witness.
(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless:
(1) The testimony relates to an uncontested issue;
(2) The testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or
(3) Disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.
(b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN CLIENTS
Marc Randazza violated Rule 4.1 and LIED deliberately to others regarding me. As the above chronology clearly shows Marc Randazza knowingly made false statements of fact to others, including and not limited to: WIPO, Forbes, NPR, the New York Times, the Ninth Circuit court, Florida District Court, Nevada State and Federal Court, multiple legal bloggers and law firms, forensic investigators, my friend, my ex’s, my pastor, my church, my phone vendor, my domain registrar, and more Third Parties.
Marc Randazza did this with deliberate intention and deliberate knowledge that the false statements of fact were false.
Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others.
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
(b) Fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Marc Randazza maliciously made statement on his blog and to large and small media outlets, radio, WIPO and courts that were not “Truthful” and therefore violated my, Cox’s rights. Randazza made widespread false statements of material fact or law to a third person in regard to his former client, me, Crystal Cox. I claim this has caused me harm and that I am entitled to relief.
Rule 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons.
Marc Randazza deliberately and with clear intention used every mean he could to embarrass, delay, and burden third parties to get private personal information about me. He did this in regard to and not limited to Diana Grandmason, Alexandra Mayers, Stephanie DeYoung, my church, my Pastor, my church secretary, and more. He pressured and threatened them until they gave information to him.
Rule 4.4
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
(b) A lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored information relating to the representation of the lawyer’s client and knows or reasonably should know that the document or electronically stored information was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender.
Marc Randazza also violated Rule 4.4 in taking my private email to him and sending it to media, to legal bloggers and claiming it was extortion. Knowing full well that the full email thread showed him saying that he knew I was asking for a job.
LAW FIRMS AND ASSOCIATIONS
Rule 5.1. Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers.
(a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if:
(1) The lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or
(2) The lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Rule 5.2. Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer.
(a) A lawyer is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another person.
(b) A subordinate lawyer does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer’s reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.
Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group violated Rule 5.1 and 5.2.
INFORMATION ABOUT LEGAL SERVICES
Marc Randazza violated Rule 7.1, 7.2 in misleading me that he was an advocate for the free speech of all. He made false statements of being a trademark and first amendment expert then used this law to attack me and as the District of Nevada case, docket entry 200 shows, Marc Randazza did not have a legitimate Trademark claim against me and violated my First Amendment Rights.
Marc Randazza violated my rights in violations of this rule as I was clearly mislead as to what he was an advocate for and what he was an expert in. Turned out he was not an expert in Trademark, First amendment or domain law.
Rule 7.1. Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services. A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it:
(a) Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;
(b) Is likely to create an unjustified or unreasonable expectation about results the lawyer can or has achieved, which shall be considered inherently misleading for the purposes of this Rule, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(c) Compares the lawyer’s services with other lawyers’ services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated; or
(d) Contains a testimonial or endorsement which violates any portion of this Rule.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006; as amended; effective September 1, 2007.]
Model Rule Comparison—2007
Rule 7.1 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 195) is the same as ABA Model Rule 7.1 except that paragraphs (b) through (d) are Nevada specific and have no counterpart in the Model Rule. The 2007 amendments changed language in paragraphs (b) and (d) only.
Rule 7.2. Advertising.
(a) Subject to the requirements of Rule 7.1, a lawyer may advertise services through the public media, such as a telephone directory, legal directory, newspaper or other periodical, billboards and other signs, radio, television and recorded messages the public may access by dialing a telephone number, or through written or electronic communication not involving solicitation as prohibited by Rule 7.3.
These Rules shall not apply to any advertisement broadcast or disseminated in another jurisdiction in which the advertising lawyer is admitted if such advertisement complies with the rules governing lawyer advertising in that jurisdiction and the advertisement is not intended primarily for broadcast or dissemination within the State of Nevada.
(b) If the advertisement uses any actors to portray a lawyer, members of the law firm, clients, or utilizes depictions of fictionalized events or scenes, the same must be disclosed. In the event actors are used, the disclosure must be sufficiently specific to identify which persons in the advertisement are actors, and the disclosure must appear for the duration in which the actor(s) appear in the advertisement.
(c) All advertisements and written communications disseminated pursuant to these Rules shall identify the name of at least one lawyer responsible for their content.
(d) Every advertisement and written communication that indicates one or more areas of law in which the lawyer or law firm practices shall conform to the requirements of Rule 7.4.
(e) Every advertisement and written communication indicating that the charging of a fee is contingent on outcome or that the fee will be a percentage of the recovery shall contain the following disclaimer if the client may be liable for the opposing parties’ fees and costs: “You may have to pay the opposing parties’ attorney fees and costs in the event of a loss.”
(f) A lawyer who advertises a specific fee or range of fees shall include the duration said fees are in effect and any other limiting conditions to the availability of the fees. For advertisements in the yellow pages of telephone directories or other media not published more frequently than annually, the advertised fee or range of fees shall be honored for no less than one year following publication.
(g) A lawyer may make statements describing or characterizing the quality of the lawyer’s services in advertisements and written communications. However, such statements are subject to proof of verification, to be provided at the request of the state bar or a client or prospective client.
(h) Any statement or disclaimer required by these rules shall be made in each language used in the advertisement or writing with respect to which such required statement or disclaimer relates; provided, however, the mere statement that a particular language is spoken or understood shall not alone result in the need for a statement or disclaimer in that language.
(i) Statement regarding past results. If the advertisement contains any reference to past successes or results obtained, the communicating lawyer or member of the law firm must have served as lead counsel in the matter giving rise to the recovery, or was primarily responsible for the settlement or verdict. The advertisement shall also contain a disclaimer that past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict future cases.
If the past successes or results obtained include a monetary sum, the amount involved must have been actually received by the client, and the reference must be accompanied by adequate information regarding the nature of the case or matter and the damages or injuries sustained by the client, and if the gross amount received is stated, the attorney fees and litigation expenses withheld from the amount must be stated as well.
Randazza has Duties to Cox as a former client
Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group owed me a duty, a standard of care, and had obligations to me as a former client. Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group violated Rule 1.9 and seriously acted adversely against me.
Rule 1.9. Duties to Former Clients.
(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client:
(1) Whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and
(2) About whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter;
(3) Unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
(1) Use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or
(2) Reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(1) The representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) There is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
(1) The lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) The representation is not prohibited by law;
(3) The representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and
(4) Each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group violated Rule 1.7 in representing him and his family in suing me , a former client, and violated this rule with other aspects of this complaint. It was directly adverse for Randazza Legal Group to represent Marc Randazza, Jennifer Randazza and their daughter in claims against me, their former client.
Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group acted with serious conflicts of interest.
CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP
Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group did not provide competent representation to me as the record shows. Marc Randazza violated Rule 1.1 and 1.2.
Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group did not provide competent representation to me as the record shows. Marc Randazza violated Rule 1.1 and 1.2.
Rule 1.1. Competence. A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer.
(a) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.
(b) A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.
(c) A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer.
(a) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.
(b) A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.
(c) A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Marc Randazza violated Rule 1.3 and was negligent in his diligence in representing me, promptly informing me, communicating with me, respecting me and my wishes, being reasonable on consulting me regarding my objectives, and keeping me informed.
Rule 1.3. Diligence. A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
Rule 1.3 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 153) is the same as ABA Model Rule 1.3.
Rule 1.4. Communication.
(a) A lawyer shall:
(1) Promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required by these Rules;
(2) Reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) Keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
(4) Promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
(5) Consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Randazza had a duty to Cox to keep information Confidential
Marc Randazza violated Rule 1.6 in his disclosure of my secrets and strategy to the opposition in my case without my permission and with using private emails and information from me to him and him to me, as a weapon against me in courts and mass media to bully me, harass me, intimidate me and ruin my life and business.
Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of Information.
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by paragraphs (b) and (c).
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) To prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) To prevent the client from committing a criminal or fraudulent act in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services, but the lawyer shall, where practicable, first make reasonable effort to persuade the client to take suitable action;
(3) To prevent, mitigate, or rectify the consequences of a client’s criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer’s services have been or are being used, but the lawyer shall, where practicable, first make reasonable effort to persuade the client to take corrective action;
(4) To secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;
(5) To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client; or
(6) To comply with other law or a court order.
(c) A lawyer shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by paragraphs (b) and (c).
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) To prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) To prevent the client from committing a criminal or fraudulent act in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services, but the lawyer shall, where practicable, first make reasonable effort to persuade the client to take suitable action;
(3) To prevent, mitigate, or rectify the consequences of a client’s criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer’s services have been or are being used, but the lawyer shall, where practicable, first make reasonable effort to persuade the client to take corrective action;
(4) To secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;
(5) To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client; or
(6) To comply with other law or a court order.
(c) A lawyer shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Rule 1.10. Imputation of Conflicts of Interest.
Marc Randazza violated Rule 1.10 in knowingly representing a client in adverse to me, which in this case was his law firm representing him, his wife and his daughter as clients against me, their former client.
(a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7, 1.9, or 2.2, unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.
(b) When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client represented by the formerly associated lawyer and not currently represented by the firm unless:
(1) The matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and
(2) Any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter.
(c) A disqualification prescribed by this Rule may be waived by the affected client under the conditions stated in Rule 1.7.
(d) Reserved.
(e) When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, no lawyer associated in the firm shall knowingly represent a person in a matter in which that lawyer is disqualified under Rule 1.9 unless:
(1) The personally disqualified lawyer did not have a substantial role in or primary responsibility for the matter that causes the disqualification under Rule 1.9;
(2) The personally disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
(3) Written notice is promptly given to any affected former client to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
(b) When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client represented by the formerly associated lawyer and not currently represented by the firm unless:
(1) The matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and
(2) Any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter.
(c) A disqualification prescribed by this Rule may be waived by the affected client under the conditions stated in Rule 1.7.
(d) Reserved.
(e) When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, no lawyer associated in the firm shall knowingly represent a person in a matter in which that lawyer is disqualified under Rule 1.9 unless:
(1) The personally disqualified lawyer did not have a substantial role in or primary responsibility for the matter that causes the disqualification under Rule 1.9;
(2) The personally disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
(3) Written notice is promptly given to any affected former client to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Even if Randazza were to oddly prevail at claiming he was not Coxs attorney, then he was at least a third party neutral.
Rule 1.12. Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator or Other Third-Party Neutral.
(a) Except as stated in paragraph (d), a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer, or law clerk to such a person or as an arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral, unless all parties to the proceeding give informed consent confirmed in writing.
(b) A lawyer shall not negotiate for employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer, or as an arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral. A lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge or other adjudicative officer may negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer involved in a matter in which the clerk is participating personally and substantially, but only after the lawyer has notified the judge or other adjudicative officer.
(c) If a lawyer is disqualified by paragraph (a), no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in the matter unless:
(1) The disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
(2) Written notice is promptly given to the parties and any appropriate tribunal to enable them to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule.
(d) An arbitrator selected as a partisan of a party in a multimember arbitration panel is not prohibited from subsequently representing that party.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
(a) Except as stated in paragraph (d), a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer, or law clerk to such a person or as an arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral, unless all parties to the proceeding give informed consent confirmed in writing.
(b) A lawyer shall not negotiate for employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer, or as an arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral. A lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge or other adjudicative officer may negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer involved in a matter in which the clerk is participating personally and substantially, but only after the lawyer has notified the judge or other adjudicative officer.
(c) If a lawyer is disqualified by paragraph (a), no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in the matter unless:
(1) The disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
(2) Written notice is promptly given to the parties and any appropriate tribunal to enable them to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule.
(d) An arbitrator selected as a partisan of a party in a multimember arbitration panel is not prohibited from subsequently representing that party.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
Randazza ADVISED COX on his very first conference call and even in Exhibit 20 as per what to do with court transcripts.
DAMAGE DONE
Cox claims that she is entitled to stated relief and does not have to proof actual damages. Cox claims that Randazza has caused her years of stress, has ruined family and close relationships, has damaged client and customer relationships, has ruined her reputation, ruined her real estate company, painted her out as a criminal which affected her court cases as well as her ability to rent a home, get a job, get clients or to have a peaceful life in any way.
Cox seeks and will settle for 10 Million dollars in damages from Marc Randazza as per her loss of income, suffering and irreparable harm to her life, relationships, reputation, career, and businesses.
Weaknesses in Crystal Cox’s Counterclaims against Marc Randazza
1. Counter Defendant Randazza claims he was not Cox’s attorney and therefore owes her no duties as her attorney, and therefore his online statements were simply accusations to a private citizen, or a public figure in which he had an opinion about.
Marc Randazza claims that he is somehow protected by the First Amendment and defamation laws to claim, state, publish that Cox extorted him, and brand Cox and Bernstein as Felony Extortionists. He claims that he was not Cox’s attorney and therefore owes no duty to Cox and is not, thereby guilty of defamation or malpractice.
Randazza claims that Cox was already made out to be an extortionist before he posted that Cox was an Extortionist on his blog and before he told the world Cox had extorted him personal.
Randazza’s opinion is not adjudicated fact, even if he has some proof that Cox is guilty of extortion. If so Randazza should have went to the authorities and allowed his former client due process before posting that she was and is guilty of the felony crime of extortion.
Randazz must, as a citizen and as a lawyer and especially as Cox's former lawyer, talk to Cox about this matter and take the proof to the proper authorities so that Cox may have due process in a court of law. Once Cox has had due process and if she is found guilty through this process, then and only then can Marc Randazza post that Cox is an Extortionist, thereby guilty of the crime of extortion. Randazza cannot simply use a legal defense that he said Cox is an Extortionist because others were doing it. Randazza must prove it is fact before he posts that Cox is an Extortionist.
Even if the above was to be believed by this court, still Randazza falsely claimed Cox had a blog about his child, of which Cox never had. This defamation alone caused Cox massive damage as her friends, family, clients, customer, landlords all believed Randazza as he is an attorney and as such has clout in these matters.
2. Cox claims that Counter Defendant Marc Randazza posted false information about her online, knowingly and with malice as he had inside information into Cox’s case and used this to cause her harm intentionally.
Cox claims that Exhibits show that Randazza offered her help, claimed to respect her, and essentially set her up. As she asked him for a job and he claimed, as Exhibits show, that he had no problem with Cox asking for a job, yet Randazza painted Cox out to the world as guilty of the felony crime of extortion with the very email asking him for a job, that he claimed in the email, in his own words that he had no issue with and specifically referred to Cox asking for a job.
3. Counter Plaintiff Cox claims that Randazza was her attorney, she relied on information and advice he gave her. Cox claims that Randazza advocated for her, counseled her, negotiated on her behalf, co-counseled with Eugene Volokh in regard to her representation, and that he told other attorneys that he, indeed represented Crystal Cox in her Ninth Circuit appeal of Obsidian v. Cox.
4. Cox alleges that Randazza advised her on ordering transcripts from the court, advised her on what actions to take moving forward in her appeal, negotiated with the opposition (brokered a deal), and he requested inside information and case documents / files from Crystal Cox.
5. Cox claims that Exhibits show that Randazza admitted that he would “bow out” and let Eugene Volokh handle the case. Cox claims there would be no reason to stand down if he did not represent her. Cox claims that the only reason he had a right to discuss her case details with Eugene Volokh and the opposition was that he represented her, as her attorney.
6. Cox claims that exhibits show that Marc Randazza agreed to representation, and from this Cox believed that Randazza represented her.
7. Exhibit 1 shows that Eugene Volokh, attorney and UCLA Law Professor clearly thought Marc Randazza was Crystal Cox’s attorney. Volokh claimed that he had a long talk with Randazza and Randazza told him that he represented Cox.
Cox also claims to have had a lengthy phone call with Volokh regarding his conversations with Marc Randazza on representation, case strategy, and moving forward.
8. Exhibit 20 shows / proves that Marc Randazza was acting as my attorney, and in negotiations, talks and working with other attorneys on my behalf.
Exhibit 20 shows that Marc Randazza was advising Crystal Cox. Cox claims to have relied on this advice. Exhibit 20 shows that Randazza was working with attorney Eugene Volokh on Cox’s behalf, and working with the courts, all on behalf of and in representation of Crystal Cox.
9. Exhibit 9, Marc Randazza Answer to Interrogatories, shows that Randazza admits to acting as my (Crystal Cox’s) attorney.
Cox alleges that Exhibit 9 further proves, by Randazza's signed admittance that he was trying to negotiate a settlement for Crystal Cox as her attorney and that he agreed to bow out as her attorney, in a conversation with attorney Eugene Volokh.
This exhibit 9 in full also shows that Randazza did not believe Cox extorted him, or was guilty of extortion or an extortionist nor did he have proof of this as a matter of law. Yet he deliberately, willfully and wantonly posted on his legal blog that Cox had extorted him. Randazza also told Forbes, NPR, Popehat.com's attorney blogger Kenneth P. White, WIPO and countless others that Cox had extorted him and got them to post the story on their high profile, credible blogs and reports to deliberately, maliciously defame Cox.
Cox claims that Exhibit 9 in full, all interrogatories, also shows that Randazza admits to Cox not having a blog about his child. Yet he told Forbes, NPR,and other big and small media that she did have a blog about his child and used it to extort him.
Cox claims that Randazza knew this was not true and deliberately, wantonly and willfully with full knowledge it was not the truth, painted Cox in false light and led the world to believe Cox had harmed, defamed, harassed and had a blog about his infant child. This alone has ruined Cox's life, interpersonal relationships, business and family connections. And has made it so Cox is unable to rent a home and has been homeless for a year now.
Interrogatory answer Number One discusses that Randazza knows that Cox cannot be considered an extortionist as a matter of law without first having a jury of her peers on this matter (page 4 line 12-14). Yet he knew Cox did not have a trial, nor even a complaint or investigation, as a matter of law in this regard, yet he deliberately and with malicious intent posted on his high profile legal blog that Cox is an Extortionist.
Counter Defendant Randazza claims Cox has a history of extortionate behavior. This is not true and is something he helped attorney David Aman portray to the media in regard to an excerpt of a settlement negotiation which according to rules of evidence was not admissible in court and certainly not legal to have been given to the media and spread like wildfire by Randazza with malicious intent to defame his former client Crystal Cox.
Cox has never committed extortion, never been under investigation for the crime of extortion and has never been convicted of extortion. Randazza, with full knowledge of the law, flat out claimed Cox was Guilty of Extortion on his legal blogs and he got his big media connections, small media, bloggers and attorney legal bloggers to say those same things in retaliation against Cox.
There are no open investigation of Cox for extortion, and there have never been a criminal complaint, investigation or conviction of extortion against Cox.
There is no evidence, what so ever that I, Crystal Cox, have ever posted anything online to seek a payoff of any kind. I have never sought a financial advantage.
Randazza Admits to Being Cox's Attorneys in his Sworn Signed Interrogatory Answer ( See Full Exhibit Nine)
INTERROGATORY NO. 21 Shows that Randazza Admits to having spoke with attorney, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh and offering to "bow out" if Volokh were to take the case. The question becomes why would Randazza believe he would have to bow out, if he claims he was never Cox's attorney in the first place.
This is evidence to further prove Randazza represented Crystal Cox and told others that he represented Cox. Thereby violating Cox's right to confidentiality and laws to protect clients. Proving Cox has a valid malpractice claim.
This interrogatory answer, of which Randazza signed and swore too as true and correct, also shows Randazza admitting to negotiating a settlement on behalf of Cox, acting as her attorney.
The question then becomes what legal right did Randazza have to choose for me, make decision for me and to bow out as my attorney if he was not my attorney as he has claimed under sworn statement to this court in previous documents and motions?
This proves that Randazza was discussing a settlement with the opposition and therefore giving away my secrets, strategy, my strengths and weaknesses and meddling in my case without telling me what he was say, what settlement he was offering nor having a signed agreement with me.
Randazza clearly established an attorney client relationship with Cox and then used privileged information about Cox to defam her, ruin her life, discredit her and paint her in false light.
Randazza admits to discussing strategy with Volokh and did so without my permission or knowledge. He admits to acting as my attorney.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
Did you have phone conversations with Eugene Volokh and state that you represented Cox and discuss with him your strategy, or a deal you were trying to make with the opposition, Plaintiff’s attorney David Aman?
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
"Counterdefendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not limited in time and scope, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Counterdefendant further objects because this interrogatory is in excess of the 25 allowable interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result, Counterdefendant is not required to respond to the same. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Counterdefendant responds as follows:
Counterdefendant spoke with Eugene Volokh in December 2011.
Randazza informed Volokh that if he was going to represent Cox, that Randazza would gladly bow out, and defer to Volokh to handle the case.
Volokh, however, said that he would prefer that Randazza co-counsel the case with him due to Volokh’s stated lack of litigation experience. Counterdefendant and Volokh discussed possible strategies that he and Volokh thought might be good ideas during that call.
Counterdefendant and Volokh both discussed the fact that Cox’s interests would be better served through settlement."
"Counterdefendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not limited in time and scope, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Counterdefendant further objects because this interrogatory is in excess of the 25 allowable interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result, Counterdefendant is not required to respond to the same. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Counterdefendant responds as follows:
Counterdefendant spoke with Eugene Volokh in December 2011.
Randazza informed Volokh that if he was going to represent Cox, that Randazza would gladly bow out, and defer to Volokh to handle the case.
Volokh, however, said that he would prefer that Randazza co-counsel the case with him due to Volokh’s stated lack of litigation experience. Counterdefendant and Volokh discussed possible strategies that he and Volokh thought might be good ideas during that call.
Counterdefendant and Volokh both discussed the fact that Cox’s interests would be better served through settlement."
(Exhibit 9)
As seen above, Interrogatory 21, Randazza admitted to offering to co-counsel and that he spoke with attorney Eugene Volokh acting as Cox’s attorney and as if he had the full legal authority to do so. Randazza offered to bow out. Why would he bow out if he did not believe or was not acting as Cox’s attorney?
In the answer for Interrogatory 22, Randazza admits to discussing strategy with me, asking for files from me, discussing settlement options, Cox's goals for the litigation, and this clearly creates an attorney client relationship, especially seeings how Randazza acted on this information and contacted the Opposition and disclosed this information.
In Interrogatory 23 Randazza claims that I, Cox, gave him permission to discuss a settlement with Obsidian. Clearly in him presenting settlement offers to the opposition, he was acting as an attorney, in what he thought or represented himself as representing me. Why else would the opposition listen to him? He claimed to be my attorney.
Exhibit 17 also and again shows Marc Randazza knew he was my “actual attorney” or at the very least, my “potential attorney”.
Exhibit 19 shows that Marc Randazza agreed to and knew he was Crystal Cox’s attorney.
Exhibit 20, shows that attorney Eugene Volokh, clearly believed that Marc Randazza represented Crystal Cox, and had been told such by Randazza himself.
Exhibit 21 clearly shows Marc Randazza saying that he was trying to broker a deal on Cox’s behalf. Exhibit 21 shows that Randazza wished that Cox, I succeed and claims to have respect for me, and people like me and says that I am important. Exhibit 21 shows that Randazza apologizes if I felt disrespected.
Exhibit 21 shows that Randazza had asked me for money, and did so with no presented and signed agreement as per Nevada policy for attorneys. Randazza claimed he was representing me for free then demanded money for his expenses.
And Exhibit 21 shows that Randazza offered to help Cox in any way she may need. Cox assumed this to be any legal questions she may have, anything to help her case or to help her personally such as asking for a job. Cox assumed Randazza would keep her confidences as they moved forward with him being fired and Eugene Volokh moving forward alone as Cox’s attorney.
/s/ Crystal L. Cox
Crystal L. Cox, Pro Se
Counter Plaintiff / Defendant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)