Marc Randazza.com Before It Was STOLEN by Crystal Cox on Scribd
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Friday, November 17, 2017
The Real Deal: Authenticating YouTube Evidence
"Amid Randazza v. Cox’s “tortured history” and “procedural maneuvering by both sides,” we navigate toward the matter of authenticating a YouTube transcript and video when submitted in support of a summary judgment motion.
In 2012, plaintiffs Marc Randazza, a First Amendment attorney, his wife and young daughter filed suit against defendant Crystal Cox, a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger,” and defendant Eliot Bernstein, “alleging violations of individual cyberpiracy protections for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 8131, cybersquatting for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), their right of publicity under NRS 597.810, their common law right of publicity, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.”
The Randazzas claimed that not only had the pair registered dozens of Internet domain names that incorporated the family’s names and Cox had written blog posts containing objectionable characterizations, but also that Cox had attempted to extort them by demanding the family agree to purchase Cox’s “reputation management” services to remove this allegedly defamatory material from the Internet and rehabilitate their cyber reputations.
Cox, who was the only defendant to appear and answer the allegations, asserted that the lawsuit was filed in order to “harass and stifle her First Amendment freedoms of speech and expression.”
The defendant also strongly objected to the plaintiffs’ characterization of her actions and motivation as “extortion.”
Both the plaintiffs and the defendant sought summary judgments. The court denied these motions because all parties had not sustained their initial summary judgment burdens.
Specifically with regard to YouTube evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, the Nevada court relied on United States v. Hassan to hold that neither the transcript nor the video had been properly authenticated.
The single court having addressed how to authenticate a Youtube.com video, albeit in a criminal context, found that videos from the online video network are self-authenticating as a certified domestic record of a regular conducted activity if their proponent satisfies the requirements of the business-records hearsay exception.
In order for the evidence to meet this exception, its proponent, Mr. Randazza, had to provide certification that satisfied three requirements:
(A) that the records were made at or near the time by — or
from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) that they were kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business;
(C) that making the record was a regular practice of that activity
The court found that although Mr. Randazza has attested that the YouTube transcript he had was a true and correct copy of the video, he had neither adequately established that he was the person with personal knowledge who had prepared the transcript nor established when it was prepared and that it was complete and accurate.
Similarly, the YouTube video had not been authenticated because the plaintiffs had “not proffered the certificate of YouTube’s custodian or other qualified person verifying that the page had been maintained as a business record in the course of regularly conducted business activities.” Without this certification, the video had not been properly authenticated and could not be considered by the court.
As this cybersquatting case plods on, the 2011 case of Obsidian Finance Group, LLC and Kevin Padrick v. Crystal Cox might be of interest to readers. The defendant lost that defamation case but, earlier this year, a federal appeals court disagreed with the ruling and granted her a new trial."
Source
http://www.liquidlitigation.com/blog/the-real-deal-authenticating-youtube-evidence/
For the Full Summary Denial in Randazza v. Cox quoted Above, Click Below
http://ia800304.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf
In 2012, plaintiffs Marc Randazza, a First Amendment attorney, his wife and young daughter filed suit against defendant Crystal Cox, a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger,” and defendant Eliot Bernstein, “alleging violations of individual cyberpiracy protections for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 8131, cybersquatting for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), their right of publicity under NRS 597.810, their common law right of publicity, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.”
The Randazzas claimed that not only had the pair registered dozens of Internet domain names that incorporated the family’s names and Cox had written blog posts containing objectionable characterizations, but also that Cox had attempted to extort them by demanding the family agree to purchase Cox’s “reputation management” services to remove this allegedly defamatory material from the Internet and rehabilitate their cyber reputations.
Cox, who was the only defendant to appear and answer the allegations, asserted that the lawsuit was filed in order to “harass and stifle her First Amendment freedoms of speech and expression.”
The defendant also strongly objected to the plaintiffs’ characterization of her actions and motivation as “extortion.”
Both the plaintiffs and the defendant sought summary judgments. The court denied these motions because all parties had not sustained their initial summary judgment burdens.
Specifically with regard to YouTube evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, the Nevada court relied on United States v. Hassan to hold that neither the transcript nor the video had been properly authenticated.
The single court having addressed how to authenticate a Youtube.com video, albeit in a criminal context, found that videos from the online video network are self-authenticating as a certified domestic record of a regular conducted activity if their proponent satisfies the requirements of the business-records hearsay exception.
In order for the evidence to meet this exception, its proponent, Mr. Randazza, had to provide certification that satisfied three requirements:
(A) that the records were made at or near the time by — or
from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) that they were kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business;
(C) that making the record was a regular practice of that activity
The court found that although Mr. Randazza has attested that the YouTube transcript he had was a true and correct copy of the video, he had neither adequately established that he was the person with personal knowledge who had prepared the transcript nor established when it was prepared and that it was complete and accurate.
Similarly, the YouTube video had not been authenticated because the plaintiffs had “not proffered the certificate of YouTube’s custodian or other qualified person verifying that the page had been maintained as a business record in the course of regularly conducted business activities.” Without this certification, the video had not been properly authenticated and could not be considered by the court.
As this cybersquatting case plods on, the 2011 case of Obsidian Finance Group, LLC and Kevin Padrick v. Crystal Cox might be of interest to readers. The defendant lost that defamation case but, earlier this year, a federal appeals court disagreed with the ruling and granted her a new trial."
Source
http://www.liquidlitigation.com/blog/the-real-deal-authenticating-youtube-evidence/
For the Full Summary Denial in Randazza v. Cox quoted Above, Click Below
http://ia800304.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf
Thursday, November 16, 2017
Marc John Randazza Bankruptcy Case. Crystal Cox's OBJECTION to a DEFAULT against her Objection to Discharge of Debt Docket Entry 36.
Marc John Randazza Bankruptcy Case. Crystal Cox's OBJECTION to a DEFAULT against her Objection to Discharge... by Crystal Cox on Scribd
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
District of Nevada (Las Vegas)
Adversary Proceeding #: 16-01111-abl Docket as of 10/30/2017
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CbWvv1A1N8CaaOO3ioafaWnOSG0t3D6n/view?usp=sharing
Marc Randazza Claims in his Bankruptcy Case, in some sort of Defense against Crystal Cox's Malpractice Claims, that Malpractice is NOT an Intentional TORT so it can be Discharged.
Talk about pleading Guilty. WOW. So Marc Randazza and attorneys like him can INTENTIONALLY harm you, ruin your life as an officer of the court, completely defame you and put you under years and years of stress, then file for bankruptcy to avoid malpractice claims? And this is NOT an intentional Tort? WOW.
I say that Marc Randazza's actions were knowing and willful, were with malicious intent and actual malice and were and are most certainly an Intentional Tort.
I say that Marc Randazza's actions were knowing and willful, were with malicious intent and actual malice and were and are most certainly an Intentional Tort.
Sunday, November 12, 2017
This is exactly what Marc Randazza and Jennifer Randazza did to me and to Alexandra Mayers.
"Two California lawyers are being accused of filing "sham lawsuits" in a wide-ranging conspiracy to get Google and other search engines to de-index negative reviews about their clients. As the case (PDF) brought by a group called Consumer Opinion states:"
"The lawsuit points out six similarly worded defamation lawsuits lodged in Contra Costa County, just east of San Francisco. The suits are filed, according to the lawsuit, because pissedconsumer.com won't remove the reviews from its website. "The scam is not all that complicated," Marc Randazza, Consumer Opinion's attorney, wrote in the lawsuit."
Source and Full Article
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/lawyers-file-fake-lawsuits-to-de-index-online-negative-reviews-suit-says/
Marc Randazza filed a SHAM legal action in Nevada to remove lot's of search engine results that did not flatter him or his law firm.
"The lawsuit points out six similarly worded defamation lawsuits lodged in Contra Costa County, just east of San Francisco. The suits are filed, according to the lawsuit, because pissedconsumer.com won't remove the reviews from its website. "The scam is not all that complicated," Marc Randazza, Consumer Opinion's attorney, wrote in the lawsuit."
Source and Full Article
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/lawyers-file-fake-lawsuits-to-de-index-online-negative-reviews-suit-says/
Marc Randazza filed a SHAM legal action in Nevada to remove lot's of search engine results that did not flatter him or his law firm.
Marc Randazza Bankruptcy, Liberty Media / Excelsior Settlement Offer June 2015
So Florida will most likely disbar? Here we are nearly 2.5 years later. Anyway just saw this online so I am sharing it with my readers researching Marc Randazza's Bankruptcy.
https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SettlementOffer.randazza.pdf
https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SettlementOffer.randazza.pdf
Reminds me of the Recent Letter I got from Marc Randazza's attorney.
Ya Marc Randazza, you can't send people "shit" and order them to keep it confidential.
"Unless you’ve agreed to confidentiality, it ain’t confidential"
"What was that we were saying about how it doesn’t work to send someone a furious abusive email and then announce that it’s confidential? How you can’t just send people shit they didn’t ask for and then order them to keep it secret? Behold Marc Randazza in 2014 saying exactly that, and unlike me he’s a lawyer."
This happens to all of us, from time to time. A lawyer sends you a letter with some threatening language on it that he thinks accomplishes his goal of making it “confidential.” You know, like this:
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL NOTICE
PUBLICATION OR DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED
The correct legal response is “suck my ass” or whatever you want to say. Ok, fine, how about “your point is invalid”. Let’s go with that. It is nicer, after all. And I’m all about being nice.
Now here’s one thing you can rest assured of: If someone puts that foolishness on their letter, it is because they’re afraid of that letter getting out there. They can’t possibly have confidence in what’s in it. Look, I write a letter, I expect that it might wind up getting slapped on Simple Justice, with Greenfield making fun of it. Even then, I can’t seem to catch every typo. But you know what? If my name is on it, you can bet your ass that I’ll own it.
And here’s why you can make the chucklefuck who signed YOUR letter own it by publishing the shit out of it, if you want.
For starters, saying “This letter constitutes confidential legal communication and may not be published in any manner.” is about as legally compelling as Michael Scott yelling “I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY.” Lawyers do not have magic powers that turn letters into confidential communications. You’re more likely to find a lawyer who can turn water into funk than a lawyer who has the magic spell to make a letter confidential. Sure, there might be some rules that make them inadmissible for certain purposes in litigation. But, you wanna share that letter? Go right the fuck ahead. Unless you’ve agreed to confidentiality, it ain’t confidential.
So ridiculous. “Is prohibited” – it sounds so official but is so meaningless. Prohibited by whom, Kemosabe? You can’t just slap “is prohibited” on things you don’t want other people to do and expect them to obey. The “unauthorized” is equally ludicrous. We don’t have to be “authorized” to talk about stupid shit people have said to us without our inviting them to.
Marc Randazza again:
"Bottom line, no court has ever held I DECLARE CONFIDENTIALITY to be valid, nor has any court supported the “DON’T MAKE FUN OF ME BECAUSE COPYRIGHT” position – but an undisturbed case, relying on mountains of precedent, refutes it."
Bottom line: you send me unsolicited insults, don’t expect me to protect your “privacy.”
Big thanks to Screechy Monkey for citing the Randazza post."
Source
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2017/unless-youve-agreed-to-confidentiality-it-aint-confidential/
Marc Randazza again:
"Bottom line, no court has ever held I DECLARE CONFIDENTIALITY to be valid, nor has any court supported the “DON’T MAKE FUN OF ME BECAUSE COPYRIGHT” position – but an undisturbed case, relying on mountains of precedent, refutes it."
NO COURT Really Randazza? Well I am SUED if I make fun of you and my content removed, as well as may others you sued and bullied to remove content. Mountains of Precdent DOES not get in Marc Randazza's way. Oh and we are NOT allowed to use a "COPYRIGHT" to make fun of Marc Randazza or Jennifer Randazza as clearly seen in lawsuits against me, Crystal Cox and Alexandra Mayers.
Marc Randazza and Jennifer Randazza Get BUTTHURT and they SUE. And WIN. No pesky Constitutional Rights get in their way.
"Unless you’ve agreed to confidentiality, it ain’t confidential"
"What was that we were saying about how it doesn’t work to send someone a furious abusive email and then announce that it’s confidential? How you can’t just send people shit they didn’t ask for and then order them to keep it secret? Behold Marc Randazza in 2014 saying exactly that, and unlike me he’s a lawyer."
This happens to all of us, from time to time. A lawyer sends you a letter with some threatening language on it that he thinks accomplishes his goal of making it “confidential.” You know, like this:
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL NOTICE
PUBLICATION OR DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED
The correct legal response is “suck my ass” or whatever you want to say. Ok, fine, how about “your point is invalid”. Let’s go with that. It is nicer, after all. And I’m all about being nice.
Now here’s one thing you can rest assured of: If someone puts that foolishness on their letter, it is because they’re afraid of that letter getting out there. They can’t possibly have confidence in what’s in it. Look, I write a letter, I expect that it might wind up getting slapped on Simple Justice, with Greenfield making fun of it. Even then, I can’t seem to catch every typo. But you know what? If my name is on it, you can bet your ass that I’ll own it.
And here’s why you can make the chucklefuck who signed YOUR letter own it by publishing the shit out of it, if you want.
For starters, saying “This letter constitutes confidential legal communication and may not be published in any manner.” is about as legally compelling as Michael Scott yelling “I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY.” Lawyers do not have magic powers that turn letters into confidential communications. You’re more likely to find a lawyer who can turn water into funk than a lawyer who has the magic spell to make a letter confidential. Sure, there might be some rules that make them inadmissible for certain purposes in litigation. But, you wanna share that letter? Go right the fuck ahead. Unless you’ve agreed to confidentiality, it ain’t confidential.
So ridiculous. “Is prohibited” – it sounds so official but is so meaningless. Prohibited by whom, Kemosabe? You can’t just slap “is prohibited” on things you don’t want other people to do and expect them to obey. The “unauthorized” is equally ludicrous. We don’t have to be “authorized” to talk about stupid shit people have said to us without our inviting them to.
Marc Randazza again:
"Bottom line, no court has ever held I DECLARE CONFIDENTIALITY to be valid, nor has any court supported the “DON’T MAKE FUN OF ME BECAUSE COPYRIGHT” position – but an undisturbed case, relying on mountains of precedent, refutes it."
Bottom line: you send me unsolicited insults, don’t expect me to protect your “privacy.”
Big thanks to Screechy Monkey for citing the Randazza post."
Source
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2017/unless-youve-agreed-to-confidentiality-it-aint-confidential/
Marc Randazza again:
"Bottom line, no court has ever held I DECLARE CONFIDENTIALITY to be valid, nor has any court supported the “DON’T MAKE FUN OF ME BECAUSE COPYRIGHT” position – but an undisturbed case, relying on mountains of precedent, refutes it."
NO COURT Really Randazza? Well I am SUED if I make fun of you and my content removed, as well as may others you sued and bullied to remove content. Mountains of Precdent DOES not get in Marc Randazza's way. Oh and we are NOT allowed to use a "COPYRIGHT" to make fun of Marc Randazza or Jennifer Randazza as clearly seen in lawsuits against me, Crystal Cox and Alexandra Mayers.
Thursday, November 9, 2017
The tactics of the Gang Stalking attorneys who work with Marc Randazza and I allege some judges in the past are just as evil as what we are hearing about Harvey Weinstein and worse. Many of these targeted whistleblowers are harassed and shamed into suicide. Marc Randazza is NOT above the law nor is ANY attorney, Godaddy insider, Google insider, Court Clerk, or ANYONE else who helped Randazza to silence Victims.
Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group and their conspirators are CONSTANTLY active in suppressing Journalism. They use their power and position as officers of the court to intimidate, threaten, bully, and shut down those who expose the Porn Industry secrets, expose human trafficking, EXPOSE predators, and EXPOSE the attorneys who protect them.
Marc Randazza, Ron Green and Randazza Legal Group sidesteps the First Amendment and use any intimidation tactic available. Your hearing now of how Harvey Weinstein got a gang of investigators, lawyers, spies and more to silence and intimidate women. Randazza and his co-conspirators, I allege, do the same tactics to SILENCE journalists which is what investigative bloggers are. The BIG difference is they are OFFICERS OF THE COURT.
Randazza succeeds in removing mass content, getting huge judgments, getting bank records and phone records, alienating people by threatening to sue anyone who is connected to them or works with them and drives them into financial ruin, constant never ending fear and stress, and after years of that Randazza Legal Group WILL file in a court of law to make their VICTIM, their TARGET pay for their legal fees for attacking, harassing, tormenting, suing, defaming and ruining the Targets life.
Just as the Weinstein case, we see large amounts of victims come out and tell the courts what officers of the court Randazza Legal Group and ALL connected attorneys are doing. And the courts have thus far protected these guys.
They actual file lawsuits against each others targets, they blog the conspired narrative in mass among many "credible" officers of the court aKa attorneys. These malicious "opinions" on blogs by officers of the court are not only deemed credible and true but they are used as actual EXHIBITS in a Court of Law as Unadjudicated yet VERY EFFECTIVE evidence against their target.
These Gang stalking Attorneys are believed over and over as their target is NOT believed, ruled against and their life is ruined.
Check Out Jennifer Randazza and Marc Randazza suing me, Crystal Cox to shut down massive online content, steal domain names and redirect them to their commercial site, bully me, harass and threaten me. Read it all and learn how these attorneys do this.
Also research J. Devoy cases and cases that involve Judge Navarro and many unconstitutional TRO's. There are many cases out there where these guys sue a target, get the precedence they want, shut down content (Chill Speech) and get a Judgment in their favor to pay them HUGE legal fees for their fraud on the court, torturous interference, bullying, lying, threatening, HORRIFIC RETALITION.
Randazza v. Cox Docket
http://ia600304.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html
THESE GANG STALKING ATTORNEYS threaten, sue, bully, intimidate, stalk, blog hate in mass, drive by victims homes, publish victims home address, and have a constant campaign to keep them quiet WHATEVER IT TAKES.
Alexandra Mayers was sued by Jennifer Randazza, the wife of First Amendment PORN attorney Marc Randazza. Jennifer Randazza claimed Alexandra Mayers Defamed her "per se" and painted her in False Light. This is SERIOUSLY Laughable, a Parody, a Joke. Oh wait its a REALLY BIG DEAL. As this EVIL woman, Jennifer Randazza seems to have convinced a seemingly rogue and corrupt court to actual rule in her favor. I wonder that that cost??? "per se"
J. Malcom DeVoy and Ronald Green of Randazza Legal Group represented Jennifer Randazza in this malicious UNCONSTITUTIONAL, Unlawful Lawsuit to silence and intimidate a journalist.
Alexandra Mayers / Monica Foster NEVER had an "unhealthy obsession" with Jennifer Randazza. Instead Alexandra Mayers dedicated her life to doing the right thing and reporting on the REAL "bad guys" such as Jennifer Randazza's husband and the thugs at his law firm Randazza Legal Group who were causing real harm to people.
Alexandra Mayers was reporting on them, exposing them and making fun of them as his her First Amendment Protected right. Jennifer Randazza is the one who had the VERY "unhealthy" obsession with Monica Foster / Alexandra Mayers . Why not ignore the name calling? I allege that Jennifer Randazza sued Alexandra Mayers as a PROXY for her husband and his gang stalking co-conspirators to suppress Alexandra Mayers speech, steal blogs and other intellectual property, and to intimidate and bully Alexandra Mayers .
Marc Randazza has a SERIOUS "unhealthy obsession" with any woman who DARES to make fun of him, call his wife a slut, expose his illegal behavior, report on porn industry criminal allegations and unethical behavior and most of all WOMEN WHO DARE TO STAND UP TO HIM.
Check Out A-14-699072-C | Jennifer Randazza, Plaintiff(s) vs. Alexandra Mayers, Defendant AND see how to SHUT down the TRUTH and use the Judicial Process for REVENGE against someone who called you a slut and made "parody" of your high profile life that has NO RIGHT to Privacy as suggested in their legal cases as a matter of law. See the link below for Federal Judge SHUT down of these allegations.
Was Jennifer Randazza connected to Organized Crime or Pornography? Ummm geee Duh, all you have to do is look at Marc Randazza's blogs, or pool parties with predators they took their kids to as seen in this Arbitration.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiMV9xcl9qeVdpSUU/view?usp=sharing
Jennifer Randazza and Marc Randazza I ALLEGE have Committed SERIOUS "INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT" in Mass and have used the power of our legal system to do it.
A-14-699072-C | Jennifer Randazza, Plaintiff(s) vs. Alexandra Mayers, Clark County Nevada Rob Bare, Bonnie Bulla Case Docket Linked Below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MEASOxyMqeDK5KqTF8OhDScygbBi_PUe/view?usp=sharing
How in the World did Clark County Courts let Jennifer Randazza get away with these knowingly false pleadings and I allege perjury? Well who knows? I do know the TRUTH has a tendency to comet out. SO one day that too will surface from the "False Light" to the "True Light".
We all thought that Jennifer Randazza contacted Monica Foster / Alexandra Mayers and set up a meeting to discuss trying to get away from Marc Randazza. I FULLY believed that to be true, so did other followers of Monica's blogs. As someone claiming to be Jennifer Randazza contacted Monica Foster / Alexandra Mayers, that really happened.
Monica posted on her blog about the meeting, and yeah to Divorce Marc Randazza would be to leave #organisedcrime and #prostitution as that is the industry he works in as the RECORD everywhere CLEARLY shows. So to sue Jennifer Randazza contacted Monica Foster / Alexandra Mayers
Jennifer Randazza made false and SERIOUSLY HARMFUL statements about me Crystal Cox and did see in sworn to be true court filings. Flat out LIES, Defamation and False Light to a Federal Court about me, yet that's ok? Why? Because it is my life SHE ruined in suing me?
None of Jennifer Randazza's allegations are "highly offensible" to the "reasonable person" and even if poor baby Jennifer Randazza was offended SO WHAT. The Randazza's are the Face out there on the TV and in other mass media fighting for the right to OFFEND People.
Jennifer Randazza YOU DO NOT GET THE LUXURY OF BEING "OFFENDED"
Again See The Court Order Below. Jennifer Randazza does not get to claim this shit, as a matter of LAW. Summary Judgement DENIAL in Randazza c. Cox. Jennifer Randazza is NOT above the Law.
http://ia800304.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf
I allege that Jennifer Randazza perjured herself in this case and I hope to soon file criminal charges myself as Jennifer Randazza is a very dangerous woman, using the power of our judicial system and her officer of the court husband to SHUT DOWN women who call her out, tell the truth about her and her husband and make fun of Jennifer Randazza.
Jennifer Randazza had such an Unhealthy Obsession with me, Crystal Cox, that she sued me for around 30 million and her husband and his law firm took my intellectual property in MASS to shut down my Speech about the RANDAZZAS.
These Free Speech hating Jackasses simply removed my blogs about princess Jennifer Randazza. So we may never get to the bottom of this Slut thing or allegations of how Marc Randazza and Jennifer Randazza really met? Got a Tip? ReverendCrystalCox@Gmail.com
We shall examine the Whole Is or Was Jennifer Randazza a Slut thing
Well Marc Randazza sure does describe what I allege is a SLUT, check it out
"we had a particularly spirited drunken tryst that day. Yep, some great scuba diving, some great mojitos with some of my best friends, a little whisper of “lets go take a nap,” in my ear, and a new life begins."
Source and Full Drunken Tryst
https://web.archive.org/web/20110303101527/http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/the-most-amazing-news/
Oh and Check out Marc Randazza Defending Rush Limbaugh to call Sandra Fluke a SLUT, but We Dare not call Drunken Tryst get knocked up by a Porn Attorney clearly using no protection Jennifer Brochey Randazza a SLUT, how dare we
Check this out
http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/2014/12/marc-j-randazza-says-ms-mayers-got-sued.html
Oh and this one, at 1;15 into it is a discussion where going after another guys wife is a First Amendment RIGHT but not for Crystal Cox or Alexandra Mayers, NOPE Sue Them.
Check it out
And don't forget Joseph Rakofsky
Joseph Rakofsky explained in great detail what these guys were doing and that was years ago. Still our Courts let this behavior continued. I mean who is going to disbelieve a bunch of attorneys saying the same thing and even bloggging flat out lies about people that is then used by the other attorneys in court cases as UNADJUDICATED yet effective Evidence against their target.
Joseph Rakofsky AGAIN told the courts exactly what these attorneys were doing and the Courts simply ignored the victims and chose the bad guy attorneys. Meanwhile the litigant/victim is discredited in mass by their gang of attorneys, forensic accountants, journalists and judges.
Open Letter I wrote to Joseph Rakofsky
http://proofofcorruption.blogspot.com/2013/02/open-letter-to-joseph-rakofsky-from.html
JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, and RAKOFSKY LAW FIRM, P.C.,
INDE)( NO.: 105573/11
Plaintiffs,
-against
THE WASHINGTON POST, et aI.,
Defendants.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK PROTECTING THEM.
THESE GUYS REALLY DID GANG UP ON THIS GUY TO PROTECT THE LIES AND BAD, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR OF ONE OF THEIR OWN.
A Few Research Links on Rakofsky v. the Internet.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130510/17292223040/judge-not-impressed-rakofsky-v-internet-dismisses-defamation-claims.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/23465814426/recent-law-school-grad-gets-berated-judge-then-sues-nearly-everyone-who-discussed-case.shtml
Joseph Rakofsky reported the Truth and experienced Judicial Retaliation in mass.
And there are many More. The Courts know and thus far have let these guys continue to use this same tactic in State and Federal Courts. I Allege over and over that all Marc Randazza, Ronald Green, J. Devoy and ALL the attorneys named in the cases above really are and have done this stuff and the courts NEED to stop letting them get away with it.
Some more Drunken Tryst Research
http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/search?q=tryst
Marc Randazza, Ron Green and Randazza Legal Group sidesteps the First Amendment and use any intimidation tactic available. Your hearing now of how Harvey Weinstein got a gang of investigators, lawyers, spies and more to silence and intimidate women. Randazza and his co-conspirators, I allege, do the same tactics to SILENCE journalists which is what investigative bloggers are. The BIG difference is they are OFFICERS OF THE COURT.
Randazza succeeds in removing mass content, getting huge judgments, getting bank records and phone records, alienating people by threatening to sue anyone who is connected to them or works with them and drives them into financial ruin, constant never ending fear and stress, and after years of that Randazza Legal Group WILL file in a court of law to make their VICTIM, their TARGET pay for their legal fees for attacking, harassing, tormenting, suing, defaming and ruining the Targets life.
Just as the Weinstein case, we see large amounts of victims come out and tell the courts what officers of the court Randazza Legal Group and ALL connected attorneys are doing. And the courts have thus far protected these guys.
They actual file lawsuits against each others targets, they blog the conspired narrative in mass among many "credible" officers of the court aKa attorneys. These malicious "opinions" on blogs by officers of the court are not only deemed credible and true but they are used as actual EXHIBITS in a Court of Law as Unadjudicated yet VERY EFFECTIVE evidence against their target.
These Gang stalking Attorneys are believed over and over as their target is NOT believed, ruled against and their life is ruined.
Check Out Jennifer Randazza and Marc Randazza suing me, Crystal Cox to shut down massive online content, steal domain names and redirect them to their commercial site, bully me, harass and threaten me. Read it all and learn how these attorneys do this.
Also research J. Devoy cases and cases that involve Judge Navarro and many unconstitutional TRO's. There are many cases out there where these guys sue a target, get the precedence they want, shut down content (Chill Speech) and get a Judgment in their favor to pay them HUGE legal fees for their fraud on the court, torturous interference, bullying, lying, threatening, HORRIFIC RETALITION.
Randazza v. Cox Docket
http://ia600304.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html
THESE GANG STALKING ATTORNEYS threaten, sue, bully, intimidate, stalk, blog hate in mass, drive by victims homes, publish victims home address, and have a constant campaign to keep them quiet WHATEVER IT TAKES.
Alexandra Mayers was sued by Jennifer Randazza, the wife of First Amendment PORN attorney Marc Randazza. Jennifer Randazza claimed Alexandra Mayers Defamed her "per se" and painted her in False Light. This is SERIOUSLY Laughable, a Parody, a Joke. Oh wait its a REALLY BIG DEAL. As this EVIL woman, Jennifer Randazza seems to have convinced a seemingly rogue and corrupt court to actual rule in her favor. I wonder that that cost??? "per se"
Alexandra Mayers / Monica Foster NEVER had an "unhealthy obsession" with Jennifer Randazza. Instead Alexandra Mayers dedicated her life to doing the right thing and reporting on the REAL "bad guys" such as Jennifer Randazza's husband and the thugs at his law firm Randazza Legal Group who were causing real harm to people.
Alexandra Mayers was reporting on them, exposing them and making fun of them as his her First Amendment Protected right. Jennifer Randazza is the one who had the VERY "unhealthy" obsession with Monica Foster / Alexandra Mayers . Why not ignore the name calling? I allege that Jennifer Randazza sued Alexandra Mayers as a PROXY for her husband and his gang stalking co-conspirators to suppress Alexandra Mayers speech, steal blogs and other intellectual property, and to intimidate and bully Alexandra Mayers .
Marc Randazza has a SERIOUS "unhealthy obsession" with any woman who DARES to make fun of him, call his wife a slut, expose his illegal behavior, report on porn industry criminal allegations and unethical behavior and most of all WOMEN WHO DARE TO STAND UP TO HIM.
 |
| When Jennifer Randazza Gets BUTTHURT she sues the Women who Stood up to her THUG of a Hubby |
Yet somehow the Nevada State court went along with Jennifer Randazza???
Was Jennifer Randazza connected to Organized Crime or Pornography? Ummm geee Duh, all you have to do is look at Marc Randazza's blogs, or pool parties with predators they took their kids to as seen in this Arbitration.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiMV9xcl9qeVdpSUU/view?usp=sharing
Jennifer Randazza and Marc Randazza I ALLEGE have Committed SERIOUS "INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT" in Mass and have used the power of our legal system to do it.
A-14-699072-C | Jennifer Randazza, Plaintiff(s) vs. Alexandra Mayers, Clark County Nevada Rob Bare, Bonnie Bulla Case Docket Linked Below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MEASOxyMqeDK5KqTF8OhDScygbBi_PUe/view?usp=sharing
How in the World did Clark County Courts let Jennifer Randazza get away with these knowingly false pleadings and I allege perjury? Well who knows? I do know the TRUTH has a tendency to comet out. SO one day that too will surface from the "False Light" to the "True Light".
We all thought that Jennifer Randazza contacted Monica Foster / Alexandra Mayers and set up a meeting to discuss trying to get away from Marc Randazza. I FULLY believed that to be true, so did other followers of Monica's blogs. As someone claiming to be Jennifer Randazza contacted Monica Foster / Alexandra Mayers, that really happened.
Monica posted on her blog about the meeting, and yeah to Divorce Marc Randazza would be to leave #organisedcrime and #prostitution as that is the industry he works in as the RECORD everywhere CLEARLY shows. So to sue Jennifer Randazza contacted Monica Foster / Alexandra Mayers
Jennifer Randazza made false and SERIOUSLY HARMFUL statements about me Crystal Cox and did see in sworn to be true court filings. Flat out LIES, Defamation and False Light to a Federal Court about me, yet that's ok? Why? Because it is my life SHE ruined in suing me?
None of Jennifer Randazza's allegations are "highly offensible" to the "reasonable person" and even if poor baby Jennifer Randazza was offended SO WHAT. The Randazza's are the Face out there on the TV and in other mass media fighting for the right to OFFEND People.
Jennifer Randazza YOU DO NOT GET THE LUXURY OF BEING "OFFENDED"
Again See The Court Order Below. Jennifer Randazza does not get to claim this shit, as a matter of LAW. Summary Judgement DENIAL in Randazza c. Cox. Jennifer Randazza is NOT above the Law.
http://ia800304.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf
I allege that Jennifer Randazza perjured herself in this case and I hope to soon file criminal charges myself as Jennifer Randazza is a very dangerous woman, using the power of our judicial system and her officer of the court husband to SHUT DOWN women who call her out, tell the truth about her and her husband and make fun of Jennifer Randazza.
Jennifer Randazza had such an Unhealthy Obsession with me, Crystal Cox, that she sued me for around 30 million and her husband and his law firm took my intellectual property in MASS to shut down my Speech about the RANDAZZAS.
These Free Speech hating Jackasses simply removed my blogs about princess Jennifer Randazza. So we may never get to the bottom of this Slut thing or allegations of how Marc Randazza and Jennifer Randazza really met? Got a Tip? ReverendCrystalCox@Gmail.com
We shall examine the Whole Is or Was Jennifer Randazza a Slut thing
Well Marc Randazza sure does describe what I allege is a SLUT, check it out
"we had a particularly spirited drunken tryst that day. Yep, some great scuba diving, some great mojitos with some of my best friends, a little whisper of “lets go take a nap,” in my ear, and a new life begins."
Source and Full Drunken Tryst
https://web.archive.org/web/20110303101527/http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/the-most-amazing-news/
Oh and Check out Marc Randazza Defending Rush Limbaugh to call Sandra Fluke a SLUT, but We Dare not call Drunken Tryst get knocked up by a Porn Attorney clearly using no protection Jennifer Brochey Randazza a SLUT, how dare we
Check this out
http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/2014/12/marc-j-randazza-says-ms-mayers-got-sued.html
Oh and this one, at 1;15 into it is a discussion where going after another guys wife is a First Amendment RIGHT but not for Crystal Cox or Alexandra Mayers, NOPE Sue Them.
Check it out
And don't forget Joseph Rakofsky
Joseph Rakofsky explained in great detail what these guys were doing and that was years ago. Still our Courts let this behavior continued. I mean who is going to disbelieve a bunch of attorneys saying the same thing and even bloggging flat out lies about people that is then used by the other attorneys in court cases as UNADJUDICATED yet effective Evidence against their target.
Joseph Rakofsky AGAIN told the courts exactly what these attorneys were doing and the Courts simply ignored the victims and chose the bad guy attorneys. Meanwhile the litigant/victim is discredited in mass by their gang of attorneys, forensic accountants, journalists and judges.
Open Letter I wrote to Joseph Rakofsky
http://proofofcorruption.blogspot.com/2013/02/open-letter-to-joseph-rakofsky-from.html
JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, and RAKOFSKY LAW FIRM, P.C.,
INDE)( NO.: 105573/11
Plaintiffs,
-against
THE WASHINGTON POST, et aI.,
Defendants.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK PROTECTING THEM.
A Few Research Links on Rakofsky v. the Internet.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130510/17292223040/judge-not-impressed-rakofsky-v-internet-dismisses-defamation-claims.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/23465814426/recent-law-school-grad-gets-berated-judge-then-sues-nearly-everyone-who-discussed-case.shtml
Joseph Rakofsky reported the Truth and experienced Judicial Retaliation in mass.
And there are many More. The Courts know and thus far have let these guys continue to use this same tactic in State and Federal Courts. I Allege over and over that all Marc Randazza, Ronald Green, J. Devoy and ALL the attorneys named in the cases above really are and have done this stuff and the courts NEED to stop letting them get away with it.
Some more Drunken Tryst Research
http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/search?q=tryst
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
RandazzaLegalGroupSucks.com - ANOTHER Stolen Speech Case by Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group
There is TONS of Case law protecting "Sucks" sites, YET Marc Randazza and Ronald Green of Randazza Legal Group have stolen lot's of them. Marc Randazza will NOT stand for SPEECH that calls him and his wifey names. So he uses the courts, as an officer of the court to STEAL your SPEECH.
MarcRandazza.net - I, Crystal Cox, am Dedicated to Thawing out the SPEECH Marc Randazza has CHILLED.
There are dozens and dozens of my blogs on google and wordpress that Marc Randazza removed without a trace except that this blog is removed and can't be reknewed, however, the ones that do exist in archives, Well they WILL BE SEEN.
Oh and the domain names Marc Randazza STOLE, he makes money from them by parking at a pay per click site or pointing to his COMMERCIAL site promoting his own Law Firm and Unconstitutional Legal Services.
MarcRandazza.net Before it was SUPPRESSED and STOLEN, I Allege
"Welcome to a microcosm of what they create for other people! Here now, so they can taste what they serve and be exposed as the spineless, tasteless, worthless, cowardly, lying scumbag pieces of shit they both really are...
"James and Marc seem to think that because what they do is technically legal, they are immune to recourse. Here enters Clean-Search, with our own technically legal course of action. We enjoy exercising our first amendment rights as much as cheaterville and Marc Randazza and celebrate that right with them. We want their posterity to know what noble people they both are, for standing up for the right for other people to post totally unsubstantiated, unchecked adolescent, trailer-park horse-shit trash on their website... Way to go guys! We are recording it for history. This site / server and maintenance has been appropriated for the next 200 years, so that generations of proud Randazza's and McGibney's can relish the heritage! If you are a victim of CHEATER.com malicious slander, contact the NEVADA STATE BAR Association and file a complaint against their attorney, Marc Randazza"
Oh and the domain names Marc Randazza STOLE, he makes money from them by parking at a pay per click site or pointing to his COMMERCIAL site promoting his own Law Firm and Unconstitutional Legal Services.
MarcRandazza.net Before it was SUPPRESSED and STOLEN, I Allege
"Welcome to a microcosm of what they create for other people! Here now, so they can taste what they serve and be exposed as the spineless, tasteless, worthless, cowardly, lying scumbag pieces of shit they both really are...
"James and Marc seem to think that because what they do is technically legal, they are immune to recourse. Here enters Clean-Search, with our own technically legal course of action. We enjoy exercising our first amendment rights as much as cheaterville and Marc Randazza and celebrate that right with them. We want their posterity to know what noble people they both are, for standing up for the right for other people to post totally unsubstantiated, unchecked adolescent, trailer-park horse-shit trash on their website... Way to go guys! We are recording it for history. This site / server and maintenance has been appropriated for the next 200 years, so that generations of proud Randazza's and McGibney's can relish the heritage! If you are a victim of CHEATER.com malicious slander, contact the NEVADA STATE BAR Association and file a complaint against their attorney, Marc Randazza"
MarcRandazza.net by Crystal Cox on Scribd
Marc Randazza used his power as an officer of the court to shut down massive blogs, take domain names, get gag orders and in some cases BIG Money paid to him, his wife and attorney friends for suing people to SHUT THEM UP. Another words First Amendment Rights attorney NOT.
I, Crystal Cox, am Dedicated to making sure that the Online Content Marc Randazza and his Gang Stalking attorney buddies and his wife, Jennifer Randazza have shut down REMAIN visible to those seeking the information. JewishDirt.Com, RandazzaNews.com, MarcRandazza.com, RandazzaLegalGroupSucks.com, MarcRandazzaSucks.com, MarcRandazza.net and MANY More.
I am Dedicated to UNCHILLING the SPEECH Marc Randazza has Unconstitutionally CHILLED
AND
AND
I am Dedicated to UNCHILLING the SPEECH Marc Randazza has Unconstitutionally CHILLED
Here is a bit of JewishDirt.com
JewishDirt.com by Crystal Cox on Scribd
AND
Marc Randazza mentioned on JewishDirt.com by Crystal Cox on Scribd
AND
Marc Randazza and Jennifer Randazza SUED me Crystal Cox, one of the issues was they claimed I owned RandazzaNews.com and I had made the infamous natty dazza graphic they continue to WHINE over.
the Randazza Free Speech Mafia Shut Down RandazzaNews.com and STOLE the site and Content in what I allege is Unconstitutional, Unlawful abuse on our Courts. Marc Randazza used his clout as an officer of the court to steal intellectual property and shut down speech that is or was critical of him. I am the TRUE defender of Free Speech and Will make sure you know how to access the archives. Such as sites like archive.org where you can find all manner of content Marc Randazza STOLE but yet still exists there.
Here is a bit of RandazzaNews.com much more to come.
https://www.scribd.com/document/363891592/Randazza-News-Archives-Marc-Randazza-STEALS-online-Content-He-Don-t-Like
Here is a bit of RandazzaNews.com much more to come.
https://www.scribd.com/document/363891592/Randazza-News-Archives-Marc-Randazza-STEALS-online-Content-He-Don-t-Like
Randazza News Archives - Marc Randazza STEALS online Content He Don't Like by Crystal Cox on Scribd
First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza's wife Jennifer Randazza sued Alexandra Mayers maliciously and accused me Crystal Cox of posting/creating the same thing. Nevada courts seem to be enabling Jennifer Randazza to CHILL SPEECH while Randazza Legal Group helps her do it. All in RETALIATION of Alexandra Mayers blowing the whistle on the porn industry. This case is Unconstitutional and Jennifer Randazza is CLEARLY abusing the courts to shut down speech that is not flattering to her personally.
Click Below for Docket, Jennifer Randazza can DISH it OUT but She Can't TAKE IT
https://www.scribd.com/document/363888549/A-14-699072-C-Jennifer-Randazza-Plaintiff-s-vs-Alexandra-Mayers-Defendant
https://www.scribd.com/document/363888549/A-14-699072-C-Jennifer-Randazza-Plaintiff-s-vs-Alexandra-Mayers-Defendant
oh P.S Jennifer Randazza IS a SLUT
and the Graphic Below is a JOKE, Duh
HYPOCRITICAL KING AND QUEEN
Marc Randazza and Jennifer Randazza
Sunday, November 5, 2017
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.
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.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Embattled copyright lawyer uses DMCA to remove article about himself. Marc Randazza has Abused our Justice System OVER and OVER to remove online content that did not "flatter him", exposed him or flat out criticized him.
"Marc Randazza tells Wordpress that the unflattering story "is not fair use.
Well-known copyright lawyer Marc Randazza used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to delete an online article about a dispute between his former employer and himself.
Click Below to Read the FULL document, So many Lies. Marc Randazza is the world's most hypocritical lawyer and violates First Amendment Rights in mass.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/embattled-copyright-lawyer-uses-dmca-to-remove-article-about-himself/
Well-known copyright lawyer Marc Randazza used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to delete an online article about a dispute between his former employer and himself.
Click Below to Read the FULL document, So many Lies. Marc Randazza is the world's most hypocritical lawyer and violates First Amendment Rights in mass.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/embattled-copyright-lawyer-uses-dmca-to-remove-article-about-himself/
When I First Spoke to Marc Randazza he said that the Big Media had a Monopoly on Free Speech and there was Not Much I Could Do about it. Guess I Proved First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza VERY Wrong.
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox was the FIRST to gain Equal Free Speech Rights for ALL Bloggers to that of Institutional Press Journalists.
It was ruled for the first time that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protection as a journalist.
On 2014, blogger Crystal Cox accused Obsidian and Kevin D. Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. Although the court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, it found one post to be more factual in its assertions (and, therefore, defamatory).
On 2014, blogger Crystal Cox accused Obsidian and Kevin D. Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. Although the court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, it found one post to be more factual in its assertions (and, therefore, defamatory).
It was ruled for the first time,[17][18] by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,[19] that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protection as a journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently.[20] In the decision, journalists and bloggers are equally protected under the First Amendment[17] because the "protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story."[19]:11–12[21]
I, Crystal Cox was the FIRST, because I refused Settlements over and over. I wanted a precedent to FREE all Citizen Journalists, Investigative Bloggers and Whistleblowers
#DefamationCase #FreeSpeech #ConstitutionalLaw #CrystalCoxCase #Whistleblower #InvestigativeBlogger #Ant-Slapp #CitizenJournalist #FirstAmendment #Defamation #DefamationLawsuit
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Marc Randazza has a Pattern and History of doing the same thing to people. Yet continues to sign sworn declarations of False Claims. Below is a Message from London's Tony Coe
"Crystal, I'm also a client of Randazza's. He violated rules when representing me in a deposition, admitted as much, and undertook to pay all my consequential costs. It won't surprise you to hear that he did not honor his promise! I'm also listed as a creditor."
Sent to me from Tony COE London
See Filing Below for Creditors List
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkidkJSZWwtWnVaN2c/view
Sent to me from Tony COE London
See Filing Below for Creditors List
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkidkJSZWwtWnVaN2c/view
Marc Randazza held himself out as my attorney, he bullied me to STOP me from appealing for his own gain, he ran over my rights and when I FIRED Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, he sued me, threatened me, attacked me, launched a 5 year and counting malicious cyber attack and still seems to by lying about all to Federal Courts. Take a Look
In Marc Randazza’s Recent Filing, Motion for Default, Case 16-01111-abl Doc 26 Entered 10/20/17, he claims that ONLY upon Volokh being interested in teaming up with him was he then “willing to accept the case”. Meaning the Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal. Yet Crystal Cox claims Randazza represented her before this and told others he was her attorney. Randazza states in earlies sworn documents a different version of his story, let’s take a look.
Page 38, Line 26-28 and Page 39 1-4, Case 16-01111-abl Doc 26, (Randazza Decl. ¶ 26) Says: “Only upon Mr. Volokh expressing an interest in teaming up on the case with him did Mr. Randazza decide that he was willing to accept the case. (Randazza Decl. ¶ 26).”
In this sworn statement (Randazza Decl. ¶ 26) Randazza claims he was only interested in representing me, Crystal Cox, with Volokh and only offered to represent me after this conversation. Even though, the only reason Volokh was talking to Randazza about me, Crystal Cox was Randazza told Volokh he represented Crystal Cox. And that he was brokering a deal with the Opposition in the Obsidian case, David Aman.
In this sworn statement (Randazza Decl. ¶ 26) Randazza claims he was only interested in representing me, Crystal Cox, with Volokh and only offered to represent me after this conversation. Even though, the only reason Volokh was talking to Randazza about me, Crystal Cox was Randazza told Volokh he represented Crystal Cox. And that he was brokering a deal with the Opposition in the Obsidian case, David Aman.
The statement is false, and it is making a false declaration to a Federal Court while knowing full well it is False as Randazza swore to different facts in Case 2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL Document 252 Filed 04/06/15, Exhibit 9, Marc Randazza’s sworn interrogatory answers.
So in Case 16-01111-abl Doc 26, Page 38, Line 26-28 and Page 39 1-4, we see RANDAZZA swearing that he ONLY agreed to Represent Cox after Volokh expressed interest to team up with him. We see below in a previous Sworn statement of Randazza that he was involved in representation BEFORE speaking with Volokh, talking strategy with Volokh, and only spoke with Volokh after he had already put in time and material into representation.
Interrogatory 21 Exhibit 9:
“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?”
“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?”
Randazza’s Sworn RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
"... Counterdefendant responds as follows:
Counterdefendant spoke with Eugene Volokh in December 2011.
Counterdefendant 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 responds as follows:
Counterdefendant spoke with Eugene Volokh in December 2011.
Counterdefendant 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."
What gave Marc Randazza a legal right to negotiate who gets to be my attorney with him, if he was not indeed my attorney, or acting as if he was my attorney?
Randazza and Volokh discussed strategy? About Me? They discussed that a settlement was in my, Crystal Cox’s, best interest?
A couple of guys deciding what was in my best interest and Randazza proceeding with steps to negotiate what was in my best interest when Randazza clearly and plainly knew that I want to appeal. I did NOT want to settle nor did I want some aggressive, asshole man to decide it would be better if I settled and push me to do what I did want to do, negotiate behind my back, and trick and deceive me by letting the deadline run out while he held himself out as my attorney so no one else would represent me, thereby blocking me from appealing. He did not know I had talked to Volokh when he tried to pull off this malicious scheme.
In Conclusion,
Page 38, Number 1-13 of Interrogatory 21 Exhibit 9, Case 2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL Document 252 Filed 04/06/15 is Marc J. Randazza’s SWORN statement that the Interrogatory Answers are true to the best of his knowledge, yet we see on Page 38, Line 26-28 and Page 39 1-4, Case 16-01111-abl Doc 26, (Randazza Decl. ¶ 26) that Marc Randazza swears to the a VERY different Answer.
“I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: October 20, 2017.
/s/ Marc J. Randazza
MARC J. RANDAZZA, ESQ.”
Dated: October 20, 2017.
/s/ Marc J. Randazza
MARC J. RANDAZZA, ESQ.”
So How Can Both be True under penalty of perjury?
Hypocritcal Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group seems to be a but Slippery Under Oath or perhaps has even purjured himself yet again. Marc Randazza Bankruptcy filing as he relentless attacks blogger Crystal Cox, sure seems to be perjury to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)