Thursday, February 6, 2014

Crystal Cox, Marc Randazza; Crystal Cox on Marc Randazza's Ninth Circuit Rant and What Drives Marc Randazza

A Bit on  Marc Randazza’s Ninth Circuit Rant


(Note, come back often as this Document will continue to have points and information added to it, as I paint you a picture of what really “Drives” Marc Randazza’s Lawless, RAGE against Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, besides his out of control EGO.)


Randazza Legal Group attorney Marc Randazza continues to Cry Extortion Allegations against his former client Crystal Cox, in improper venues.


Marc Randazza has filed an Amicus Brief lying to the courts once again about Crystal Cox. He abuses his power as an attorney to bully, harass, defame and distort litigants he targets. The purpose seems to be to steal domain names, suppress speech, force settlements, silence and intimidate whistleblowers, scare people into doing what he says, and force pay for his law firm even when they act as if they are Pro Bono.


Marc Randazza claims over and over that Crystal Cox has had due process and adjudication for extortion. Yet Crystal Cox has never had any kind of due process for extortion allegations. Crystal Cox has her former attorney Marc Randazza of Marc Randazza legal group state over and over that “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST”. And because of his power and influence over big media and the courts, he is believed for some reason. And the rights of those he targets, simply seem to not exist.


Marc Randazza is desperate for Judges to simply state that Cox is an Extortionist, and to not give Cox due process for this alleged crime. See, it is best for Marc Randazza if the Judge just state that Crystal Cox is an Extortionist,  then his legal blogger friends, and big media buddies, oh and his WIPO buddy Peter L. Michaelson can use those “statements” not based in facts of a criminal investigation but simply Marc Randazza painting the picture of Extortion, as some sort of “factual evidence” against Cox so that Marc Randazza can continue to bully, harass, attack and defame Cox through is abuse of the court system and his media connections.


See Marc Randazza wants Ninth Circuit Judges job to be to accuse people of crimes in civil rulings, when those litigants have had no criminal charges, and no due process in the criminal justice system.


Marc Randazza continues to claim he was extorted after an eMail I sent him asking if he knew anyone needing marketing. So this was in December of 2011. Why not file criminal charges immediately against Crystal Cox and get those adjudicated, due process charges as a matter of law? See if Randazza would have filed criminal charges, he would then have that investigation to include in his Ninth Circuit Rant. Oh, but the only problem is there is no evidence or proof of “Cox is an Extortionist” other than the rant of Marc Randazza and his big media friends and legal blogger buddies. Oh and the eMail in which Kevin Padrick told Forbes and the New York Times that Cox had used to Extort him, after he got a $2.5 Million Judgement. The truth, of course being, that Cox’s email was taken out of context, was one of 5 emails and was a settlement offer between attorneys, as Cox was Pro Se, and trying to stop legal action against her. The email had nothing to do with the complaint that was filed BEFORE that time, as the record of LAW, clearly shows. Crystal had been sent a legal threat on December 22th 2010, the Blog Post she was on trial for was posted Dec. 25th 2010 and she was sued January 14th 2011. The email “they” claim to be extortion was a reply eMail in response to a legat threat and a 10 million dollar lawsuit filed.


David Aman, Tonkon Torp Lawyer took one email out of context and gave it to the Seattle Weekly, claiming extortion. Kevin Padrick gave it to David Carr of the New York Times and Kashmir Hill of Forbes and I was not on trial for extortion. It had no material fact in any way, so how can Marc Randazza think it is ok, as a matter of law, for there to be a Ninth Circuit Ruling on Cox being an Extortionist, or posting about corruption to seek a pay off,  when that is not what this case is about.


If Lawyer Marc Randazza feels Cox is a Criminal and his buddies Judge Gloria Navarro, and attorney Peter L. Michaelson, WIPO panelist feel Crystal Cox is a criminal then do they not have a duty to report me to the property authorities, and protect the public at large? Or is it simply a matter of law and constitutional rights to just state Cox is an Extortionist in a Judicial Ruling? And to wave the proof as the Plaintiff words in the case, words to WIPO and his words to big media, all painted out to slander, defame and paint his target, the defendant in false light.



In Randazza v. Cox, District of Nevada Marc Randazza
sued Crystal Cox and he won in the first month.


I say he won because he got my Domain names, he shut down my sites, he got what he calls a gag order, which is unclear if that is what it is. All this with an illegal, unconstitutional TRO that completely sidestepped all my due process rights. So why now 15 months later is he still using this open case to attack, defame and violate the personal and professional rights of blogger Crystal Cox, and other litigants like me in which he bullies and sues to get what he wants or silence?


Clearly Crystal Cox has no money, so why keep up with the attack? Well to suppress the truth about Marc Randazza and his connections to those involved in pedophilia, human trafficking, porn industry prostitution, the fight to NOT ban condoms and move porn to vegas and all that Crystal Cox is posting to expose his friends and clients, and him, mostly now via the Monica Foster, porn industry whistleblower blogs.


Randazza v. Cox in Nevada is a blatant attack on Crystal Cox to suppress her speech. And attacks iViewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein, one of those who has experienced over a decade of massive justice of which I report on.


All Randazza had to do was lie to a court, submit motions stating his version of facts, add in blog posts of his friends that the court calls “legal commentary”, such as Jordan Rushie, news articles by his friend Kashmir Hill of Forbes, blog posts by his forensics files friend Tracy Coenen, and his flat out lies to NPR and other news outlets.


And his target, those he bullies and sues, well they get no rights, no counter claim, no due process and simply get convicted of extortion by way of an over reaching, unconstitutional Judicial TRO Ruling accusing Cox of criminal activity of which was not a material factor or cause of action of the case, or any case Cox has ever been in.


Marc Randazza controls the Nevada Courts, has WIPO connections, has big media connections and has a gang of lawyers who post what ever he wants. This creates the public view of whatever he wants the perception to be of whatever case he is working on and forces litigants to settle, to silence or to do whatever action Marc Randazza wishes them to do.


Really it’s a SLAPP suit to silence my speech, a defamation lawsuit and a platform to accuse me of extortion, but he sues under copyright issues and alleged conspiracy, though he had no copyright. More on all that later.


Keep in mind, Eliot Bernstein never was served in this action and Crystal Cox accepted service Electronically to fight back. See Marc Randazza files legal actions, doesn’t serve the litigants then uses that to harass and attack them.  So I joined the case thinking it was a court of law, in order to fight back for justice for all. What was I thinking, the law did not apply to me, that is clear. Marc Randazza control’s the Nevada Courts and abuses his power as an attorney and connections to do what he wants to who he wants.


Attorney Marc Randazza used an Unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction, TRO to shut down blogs, steal intellectual property and alter the search engines. Though, he himself is quoted in other case as to this kind of action being unconstitutional.


Excerpt from Crystal Cox’s Objection the TRO, quoting a past case of Marc Randazza


“The Preliminary Injunction in this Case against Defendant Crystal Cox is Unconstitutional.


If a court issues an injunction prior to adjudicating the First Amendment Protection of the speech at issue, the injunction cannot pass constitutional muster.


This court denied Defendant Crystal Cox Due Process in expressly skipping the essential step of adjudicating the First Amendment protections to the speech at issue.


This court denied Defendant Crystal Cox Due Process in failing to make any findings of fact or ruling of law, much less review of the blog articles and the First Amendment. Plaintiff Marc Randazza is a Public Figure. (New York Times Vs. Sullivan)

A Judicial Order that prevents free speech from occurring is unlawful. (Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law; Principles and Policies 918 (2002) (“The Clearest definition of prior restraint is.. a judicial order that prevents speech from occurring:).



Prior Restraints are “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights.” Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stewart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). There is a “deep-seated American hostility to prior restraint” Id at 589 (Brennan, J. concurring).


Injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened damage is heavily disfavored because it interferes with the First Amendment and amounts to censorship prior to a judicial determination of the lawlessness of speech. See Moore v. City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, 41So. 2d 865, 872 (Fla. 1949). “The special vice of prior restraint,” the Supreme Court held,“is that communication will be suppressed... before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment”. Pittsburgh Press Co v. Pittsburg Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 390 (1973). Also se Fort Wayn Books Inc. v Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 66 (1989); M.I.C., Ltd v Bedford Township, 463 U.S. 1341, 11343 (1983.)


In this case, the Nevada Court has skipped the step of adjudicating the First Amendment protection relevant to the speech at issue. Prior Restraints are Unconstitutional. Also see Post-Newswek Stations Orlando, Inc. v. Guetzlo.


“RKA sought extraordinary relief in the form of prior restraint to enjoin .. . This relief is not recognized in this State, nor anywhere else in the Country. In addition to ignoring the First Amendment Rights and almost a century’s worth of common law, the .. court ignored virtually all procedural requirements for the issue of a preliminary injunction.” Page 5 Paragraph ii of Opening Brief Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Irina Chevaldina Appellant vs. R.K./FI Management Inc.;et.al., Appellees. Attorney for Appellant Marc J. Randazza Florida Bar No. 325566, Randazza Legal Group Miami Florida. This case is now hereby referenced here in, in it’s entirety, as seen in Exhibit J.”


Source of Above Quote


(Stay tuned for lot’s more on the Hypocrisy of Porn Attorney Marc Randazza.)


Crystal Cox did not even get First Amendment Adjudication for the massive blogs, domains and websites Marc Randazza seized through an illegal, unconstitutional, seriously over reaching TRO temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction


Here is the Unconstitutional, Extortion Accusing TRO Motion against Crystal Cox and iViewit Technology Inventor, Victim of Corruption Cox was reporting on, Eliot Bernstein


Crystal Cox Response to TRO Motion
TRO Motion Supplement, accusations of Criminal Activity of Cox and Bernstein



Defendant Crystal Cox Response to TRO Motion Supplement


Randazza TRO Motion Reply to Response


Another Randazza TRO Response, with false accusations


A letter from Ronald Green, Randazza Legal Group. A pending hearing he deems as a ruling and sends to Godaddy and WOW they give the names to Marc Randazza, just like that.
Defamatory, Over Reaching, Unconstitutional Order Ruling Against Cox and throwing in some accusations, and “pot shots” to further harass, defame and discredit Cox.
So who is it that Does not want the Attorney General involved and an Investigation by Authorities?? Well Crystal Cox wants an investigation, Marc Randazza does NOT.


Crystal Cox wanted a Criminal Investigation and asked the Court to Investigate Marc Randazza and his abuse of Crystal Cox and her informants. Cox also asked to enjoin the attorney general. Crystal Cox wanted due process of law for the extortion allegations, what she got was judges and attorneys ganging up on her and flat out stating Crystal Cox’s guilt without Cox being on trial for or under investigation for Extortion and thereby given due process in the criminal justice system.


Motion Requesting to Investigate Marc Randazza


Marc Randazza is afraid of an investigation and “protests”, all the while accusing Cox of extorting him, which is a crime, so why object to enjoining the attorney general and an investigation?


Investigation DENIED by Judge Gloria Navarro


Motion to Enjoin Attorney General


Order Denying to bring in the Attorney General, gee and isn’t Cox involved in Felony Extortion and yet Marc Randazza and Judge Gloria Navarro, though their ethical duty, don’t want authorities or criminal investigations?? Hmmmm


Hey Let’s Take Away her right to file electronically so we can file shit and she has to pay to print, and mail it, though ya she is penniless and we are wealthy asshole attorneys.


Motion to Declare Cox a Vexatious Litigant


Vexatious Litigant Supplement


So funny, Randazza did not accept service in cases where I sued him, yet acknowledges them and thereby has been served via electronic serving. And Randazza worked with all the Judges, yet did not enter the case, as they all attacked Cox, and with only Marc’s word to go on.


Oh and ya the Florida Judge said Cox’s claims were, “ “baseless in light of the fact that the Complaint is comprised of conclusory allegations that are oft-times fantastic or delusional.” In which you see in the above documents filed by Randazza.




And the Overreaching Judges accusations of me, “Pot Shots” slipped into a dismissal. Gee I wonder where the Judges overreaching Opinion of Crystal Cox came from?


ALSO take NOTE; it is a FACT that porn prostitution rings exist, porn agents are actually pimps. And the porn industry is involved in human trafficking, gang stalking attorneys who silence whistel blowers whatever it takes and all manner of organized crime.



Here is Crystal Cox’s Objection to being Declared a Vexatious Litigant


Oh Snap, sorry buddy Marc Randazza, you can’t declare Cox a Vexatious Litigant when you sued her. But tell ya what ol’ friend, I will accuse her of some crimes in my ruling for ya, hope that makes you feel better. So the “Judge” SLAMS Crystal Cox as she rules in her favor.


Crystal Cox, through her attorney Eugene Volokh Files a Motion to Rehear


So Before we get much, MUCH further down the rabbit hole of what Drives Porn Attorney Marc Randazza, let’s take a look at his most recent attack against Crystal Cox, his Ninth Circuit Rant, kicking and stomping, oh and flat out lying in order to get the Ninth Circuit to declare Crystal Cox a Criminal without actual filing criminal charges and allowing due process.


A Ninth Circuit Ruling makes Bloggers Equal to Traditional Journalists in Big Media and of the Institutional Press. Yet at the same time uses the ruling to issue an Opinion, not of material fact or cause of action in the case, that Crystal Cox reports on corruption matters simply so she can ask for a retraction for a pay off. This is not a fact, this has never happened and is not lawful to simply throw into a Ninth Circuit Ruling.


Is there a Conviction of Record for the Crime of Extortion of Crystal Cox or Not? If not, and so many Judges and attorneys believe Cox is committing the Felony of extortion, then why not protect the public at large and file a criminal complaint, an FBI complaint, a Department of Justice or Attorney General Complaint?


How is it the proper venue to simply state, with actual malice, over and over Cox is an Extortionist in civil cases, legal blogs and big media? And claim this is evidence to include in a Judicial Ruling as to Cox’s alleged criminal behavior, though Cox was never given due process in the criminal justice system?
Yes this very ruling gives blogs and media the right to to rant, and have an opinion and even accuse Cox of crimes so long as they truly do NOT have “actual malice”. However it is not lawful or constitutional nor is it judicially ethically to accuse people of crimes the judges “think” may have “apparently” happened, that are not even part of the case nor issues of the appeal, and thereby discredit the litigant and prejudice the litigant in her lower court trial before she even gets there, and is pro se in the lower court.


Judges should not, as a matter of law, include willy nilly, random pot shots at litigants they may not like simply to discredit them, or seemingly to make the blogger look like a criminal so that the bloggers reports on corruption are not believed by the masses, or other court processes.


Can they prove extortion? If so, then why use a ninth circuit amicus for the venue instead of a criminal court of law?  Why am I singled out to not be allowed due process for this alleged crime? Why do I not get a criminal attorney appointed? I have no money and live in church housing. I have a right to a criminal trial and a criminal attorney, in a proper court venue.


And not simply a random, drive by per say throwing it into a ruling that has nothing to do with extortion, which is a Felony, a “Crime”. And not a civil matter at issue in this Ninth Circuit Ruling.


I, Crystal Cox, have worked hard for this precedent, and gave all I knew to be my life for it. I was spiritually led to do this, to make this stand. And if I have a criminal investigation so be it, I have faith.


However, this Ruling is the most important ruling for Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers of our times and I don’t want this to happen to them when they are breaking the news, exposing corruption, or reporting on the news in their area or expertise.


The Wall of Corruption NEEDS to come down and Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers are the ones that are doing it.
This is NOT about me personally, I am fine with an extortion investigation. I am fine with hating me, thinking I am a criminal. Go for It. I do not need approval, nor to be liked. You know your Truth and I know mine.


I simply want it in the proper court, and not thrown in to this ruling as if it is a material fact of this case, because it is not. I don’t want overreaching judges and rogue aggressive attorneys to silence those  Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers, to “chill their speech” within the very ruling that professes to gives them equality in the courts.


Go ahead and attack me personally, however this is not about me.


This is about all who this divinely important ruling affects.


I say Let Freedom Reign.


I want  Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers to be Free in their reporting, to be protected TRULY equal to that of the New York Times, Forbes, USA Today, and Rogue Attorneys and their “legal commentary”, used as fact and evidence against litigants.


The truth is the truth and these  Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers are the ones really exposing it. Not Lawyers, Not Judges, Not Big Media, Not Traditional Reporters.


I feel it is my duty to protect them ALL to the best of my ability. Which is a HUGE reason I chose Eugene Volokh over Marc Randazza to litigate this delicate and vastly important issue of our times.


I want this ruling to truly level the playing field in what is the “news”, that is protected within our justice system and invite ALL in to tell their story, to report the real news by the People for the People without Fear of massive judgements, discrimination in courts or retaliation from Judges throwing in “pot shot” attacks and aggressive attorneys painting the picture that the reporter is not credible and is a criminal not to be trusted.


Which, by the way, even if you are reading the news from a “criminal” that does not mean the news is not true nor does it mean it should not have equal protection under the law. It is a separate issue and matter of law and constitutional rights.


As an anti-corruption blogger who has faced extreme prejudice and retaliation within the legal system itself, I know the unique set of free speech, extreme retaliation and whistleblower rights issues that go with it. This has become a big part of my divinely led, life mission, and I take it very seriously and pray about it several times a day, for clear direction.


I understand the fear those like me have when they want to speak out on the corruption or issues they know about. I want to give them a voice. I chose to give voice to victims of corruption. It was not happening to me, I simply felt divinely led to give voice to who I could, to do something to make this world a better place for all.


I don’t simply want them to have the right to rant and be protected under the First Amendment, I want ALL Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers to be treated equally in the courts and that includes protection from retaliation within that court system on all levels.


It is a Fact, as a matter of law, that No Judge, no court of law has convicted me of the crime of extortion. Yes they have engaged in slander, hearsay and painting me out to be an extortionist, however I have no conviction of extortion. Therefore they are slandering and defaming me in judicial rulings, with no due process or adjudication for the crime of extortion.


Was I Convicted of Extortion or Was I Not when these statements were made? It is a matter of Fact and law, either I was convicted of extortion when these Judges, WIPO and various other outlets accused me of extortion or not.


Is there a Conviction of Record for the Crime of Extortion of Crystal Cox or Not? If not then it does not belong as Fact in a Ninth Circuit Court Ruling.


Does anyone have a conviction of Crystal Cox for criminal acts or not, when they made these statements in judicial rulings, in WIPO decisions, in Real Estate Boards? No they did not. So how is this something that is used in a court of law as evidence by judges to make rulings that accuse Cox of illegal, criminal behavior without giving Cox due process of law, and constitutional rights.


No Judge has ruled that I, Crystal Cox, was guilty of extortion, they simply allege that as part of their copyright case, domain name cases, free speech suppression cases and denials of my rights to counter sue and to shut down my blogs exposing corruption in the porn industry, connected to Marc Randazza.


Just because Judges, Lawyers, and their media connections state something over and over, that does not make it fact that a ninth circuit judicial ruling or any judicial ruling should use as material fact, evidence against anyone, for any reason.


If it is not a FACT that Crystal Cox was convicted in a court of law of extortion then a Judge should not randomly throw it into a ruling as evidence against Cox, for any reason.


FACT:  Crystal Cox has never been convicted of the crime of extortion. Cox has never had a criminal complaint filed for the crime of extortion. Cox has never had a criminal attorney. Cox has never had a criminal investigation. And there is a clear pattern and history among judges, attorneys and controlled media to paint Cox out to be a criminal in order to discredit my stories of corruption. Yet there is no Criminal Conviction of Record as a matter of law.


Marc Randazza twisted his legal ease, used his own slanderous and defamatory, false statements in lower court motions as some evidence that Cox is a criminal, and wants the Ninth Circuit to be the judge and jury on that issue. Yet Crystal Cox has never been convicted of a crime, in a court of law that should be what Ninth Circuit Appellate Judges go by.


Marc Randazza used his lower court rulings, and false statements in motions and to WIPO as some sort of proof of “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST” in a Ninth Circuit Amicus Rant. There is something very wrong with this and Marc Randazza certainly “doth protest too much”. And in the WRONG legal venue.


I am not asking to be believed nor am I trying to hide that the world “believes” I am guilty of the crime of Extortion because Judges and Attorneys have painted that picture. They have also painted that picture about one of the victims of corruption I report on Eliot Bernstein, inventor of the iViewit Technology and a victim of the world’s largest technology theft.


I am asking for due process, constitutional rights, a criminal attorney and a criminal court process. As what is being done to me, can and is done to ALL anti-corruption bloggers.  It is not right, lawful or constitutional for over reaching judges and attorneys to simply state something they want “believed” by the masses and then it is a matter of fact and law just because they are judges and attorneys, and it is in a Judicial, higher court ruling.


If these Judges and Lawyers thought me guilty of a criminal act, a felony then why simply state it in a judicial opinion, in news outlets, on legal blogs and why not file a criminal complaint? And why say “apparently”, either it is fact or not. The word “apparently” is “unnecessary”.


In the Nevada Case I asked for an attorney over and over, I even filed a motion to adjoin the Attorney General, I want this all investigated, they do not want to be investigated. So they use the courts, law blogs, and big media to convict me, instead of a criminal court. This violates my due process rights and this violates my constitutional rights, and I am not the only one this happens to. It is my moral duty to protect all that this happens to and fight back to protect them, to the best of my ability.


I FIRED Marc Randazza as my attorney. Though his buddies seem to believe he “chose” not to represent me, the record clearly shows otherwise.


I chose Eugene Volokh because I wanted Eugene Volokh to be the face of this massively important social issue of our times and not a porn attorney who constantly berated me, tried to control me, tried to force me not to appeal, bullied me, harasses me, acts as a male chauvinist asshole and has put me under constant duress and hardship in every way for over 2 years and counting.  That was NOT the face for this DIVINE Ruling that brings relief to the masses, in opening the doors for the “real news” to freely poor out and have equal protection under the law.


It should be clear by now that there is a conspiracy to convict me of a crime without an actual trial for that crime in order to discredit me and who I am reporting on. Marc Randazza even sued Eliot Bernstein in the Randazza v. Cox, Bernstein Nevada case he touts as his proof somehow that “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST”. And attorney Marc Randazza named Eliot Bernstein in the WIPO case to discredit the World’s largest Technology Patent theft story of Eliot and iViewit, I have reported on for years, in which affects Marc Randazza’s client in the porn industry.


I Made a Stand Against Over Reaching Judges, and Attorneys
who abuse their power and the court process. This STAND
is for the Rights of ALL Citizen Journalists, Anti-Bloggers,
and Whistleblowers.


I, Crystal Cox, through my constitutional rights attorney Eugene Volokh, am asking for a Redaction of the allegation of criminal activity, that is not a material fact in this civil court ruling.


If the Ninth Circuit Judges grant this then it says yes, it is not acceptable for judges at any court level to simply ad lib, or take pot shots at litigants based on opinions and prejudices that are not a “matter of law” nor based in adjudicated facts for that exact issue or accusation.


If the Ninth Circuit Judges do not grant this redaction, then we know that the Ninth Circuit says, as a matter of law, constitutional rights and legal precedent that it is ethical, LAW and FACT to state someone engaging in criminal activity, in a judicial ruling that is not about that that activity. They would be saying it is ok for the New York Times or some free speech suppressing attorney to simply write an article, lie to WIPO and sue litigants and then use all of their own story they created, as factual evidence for a Judicial Ruling to essentially convict you in a ruling that will be your legacy and used against you ever day of your life and used against others reporting on corruption as a way to discredit them, harass them and retaliate against them.




We will watch and See what Rule of Law applies to Blogger Crystal Cox, and ALL Citizen Journalists, Anti-Bloggers, and Whistleblowers,who do what she does, EXPOSE Corruption.




A Few Quotes from this Motion;


“Appellant Crystal Cox does not ask this Court to modify the substance of
its opinion. She does, however, respectfully request that the Court amend its opinion to withhold the sentence that now says,


“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seek-
ing payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth
Survives Free Speech, N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. “


A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial as-
sertion modified with the word “apparently,” could be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court. But it ought not be
based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of
cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial
process. The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a
factfinder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201.


Moreover, while the New York Times column does discuss Cox’s offering
her consulting services to appellees in this case, it does not make any such
allegations about other cases. There thus seems to be no “history” of “seeking payoffs” claimed in the article. The “history” that the column is positing appears to be only a history of Cox’s “making similar allegations.”


Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, some media outlets have not only repeated this sentence, but even omitted the term “apparently” in doing so.


The widely reprinted Reuters wire service, for instance, wrote, According to the court’s opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities “and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”


Dan Levine, Blogger Gets Same Speech Protections as Traditional Press:
U.S. Court, Reuters, Jan. 17, 2014”


“ Of course, some such media omissions of qualifiers (such as “apparently”) are inevitable. Still, they highlight the fact that, when a statement is made in a Court of Appeals opinion—with the authority such opinions possess—journalists might perceive the statement as a factual finding, and not just a report of what a Judicial opinions are perceived as extraordinarily reliable sources of information.


This reliability stems from the assumption that statements in the opinion, especially statements that allege misconduct, generally rest on adjudicated facts.


Because of this, Cox respectfully requests that this particular allegation, which relies solely on a claim made in a newspaper column, be redacted from the opinion. “


Source


Marc Randazza Files Ninth Circuit Rant to Side Step Criminal Justice Process


Marc Randazza in a “though does protest too much” Rant, files an Amicus Brief to try and protect all of his motions, free speech suppression, WIPO fraud, judicial rulings, harassment and more that rely ONLY on his ability to state that Cox is an Extortionist over and over in Judicial Motions and convince judges to simply convict Cox because he says so. And use his WIPO connections to get WIPO to use a world publication to accuse Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein of the crime of Extortion simply because First Amendment Bar, Porn Attorney Marc Randazza says so.


Here is Randazza’s Ridiculous Amicus citing improper reasons that the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in a Civil Case should somehow convict Crystal Cox of criminal activity simply to justify Marc Randazza’s lies and fraud on the court in Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein in Nevada and his fraud and lies to WIPO about Crystal Cox and iViewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein.


Amicus in Support of Neither Party aKa, Hey Judges this is about me, for me and so I command you to do as I say to benefit me.


A Few Quotes, Blathers and Flat out Lies


Crystal Cox’s yammer and rebuttal is in BLUE.


“Randazza’s brief will assist this Court in deciding Cox’s pending petition for
rehearing, requesting that this Court issue a new opinion removing the citation to David Carr’s New York Times article titled “When Truth Survives Free Speech,” accusing Cox of seeking payment for retraction. Regardless of the procedural basis the Court uses for discussing Cox’s extortionate practices, the Court’s observations are correct and should stand, albeit augmented with stronger sources. “


Randazza brief is not here to “assist this Court”. Randazza is here to protect his unethical and unconstitutional actions and judicial accusations tormenting, defaming, harassing and flat lying about Crystal Cox for over 2 years.


Randazza says, “Regardless of the procedural basis the Court uses for discussing Cox’s extortionate practices”. WOW, so he is basically saying, hey I can help, as a matter of LAW, but the procedural base is of no matter to me, I just want to make sure you stick it to her, and slander her in your ruling, oh and violate her rights of due process so you don’t make me look bad for doing this to her in every venue possible for over 2 years.


Randazzle says, “the Court’s observations are correct and should stand, albeit augmented with stronger sources.” You see he seems to think it is “this Court’s” job to make an “observation” and a ruling as to whether Cox has posted allegations and than sought pay off to remove those allegations instead of adjudicated facts on those slanderous and defamatory statements.


Oh and wait, Randazza wants “stronger sources” quoted for this blatant, unconstitutional attack on Crystal Cox.


And just what are those STRONG sources that convict Cox of posting on fraud and corruption and then seeking a pay off for a retraction, well of course HIM. His words and lies to WIPO, his words and abuse of the court process in Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein, his unconstitutional preliminary injunction and his betrayal of his ex-client Crystal Cox who told him about Martin Cain, the man who filed a real estate complaint against Cox based in perjury, fraud and lies.


I have put emails into the record in the Nevada case that show that Marc Randazza contacted Martin Cain and they have “conspired” against me. This was before the “ The Proposed Disciplinary Treatment of the License of Crystal L. Cox Case” that Marc randazza seems to cite as some legal reason to accuse me of Extortion in the Ninth Circuit when that case was NOT about extortion, as are the words right from the Attorney General involved in the case, which I have in an email.


Yep, Marc Randazza sure seems to be guilty of malpractice to me, violating my rights and attorney client privilege, but I can’t seem to get anyone to go up against him in a lawsuit and “his Judges” simply dismiss mine and accuse me of criminal acts in the process.


More on the Randazzle Rant begging for an Appellate Court to CONVICT Cox of the Crime of Extortion because he says so;


“As set forth in Randazza’s concurrently submitted brief, Cox is an extortionist, and has been identified as such in public records that may be judicially noticed by this Court under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 – including the United States District Courts for the District of Nevada, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the State of Montana Board of Realty Regulation. All of these authorities have found Cox’s conduct to be extortionate, and all may be relied on by this Court even if the New York Times’ accurate discussion of her conduct cannot.”


Oh SNAP, there you have it, Randazzle says, “Cox is an extortionist” so there it is, Cox must be then right? NOT.


None of the cases Marc Randazza cites adjudicated the crime of extortion nor gave me due process on the crime of extortion, PERIOD.
Randazzle Says: “This matter is of critical importance because Appellees are far from Cox’s only victim. As set out in Randazza’s brief, Cox has engaged in a nationwide pattern of cyber-extortion.


Cox, who has draped herself in the First Amendment in this appeal, now seeks to suppress valuable information about herself from the public record, to the detriment of her victims who may seek redress from the Courts.


Within days of winning an ostensibly important First Amendment victory from this Court, she has revealed her true censorious nature and sought to have critical, factually verifiable information about her removed from the public record.


The rich irony of this development appears to be lost on Cox and her censorious request.”


Oh Cox get the “richness” of the Irony, indeed.


I am not saying ya’ll don’t have the right to call me a criminal on your blogs, oh unless you know I am not guilty of extortion and knowingly post false information with “actual malice”, then of course that may be a different story.


See folks this matter is of “critical importance” because of all of Cox’s victims. Oh I mean all those Cox reports on that are engaged in unethical and unconstitutional and even possibly illegal acts that want to shut her up, need this ruling to paint Cox out as the bad guy to protect corruption. Oh and it’s so important and accurate that these alleged victims of my extortion scheme did not seek authorities to prosecute me but instead want a Ninth Circuit Appeal case, not related to a criminal case for extortion that does not exist, to simply convict me of a crime and call it good.


There is NO nation wide extortion pattern.


There is a nation full of those creating victims, lots of corrupt and over reaching judges, lots of rogue attorneys and others to report stories on. But I forget those are “victims” according to market Randazza and not simply subjects, people, companies that I am reporting on as Marc Randazza says on his blog Cox is not a Journalist. Oh and here in this Amicus Dick Swinging Contest we see Marc Randazza yell from the rooftops, “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST”.


I do not seek to suppress valuable information. If it is so valuable dumbass, and you are protecting the public from my alleged cyber extortion schemes, then why did you not file a criminal complaint instead of years later whine to an appellate court over a defamation case?


No victims will “seek redress” as there are NO victims, there are only those I am reporting on. And if these alleged victims seek redress because I allegedly extorted them then they would not use a Ninth Circuit Civil Court ruling to do so. They would go through the proper channels in the criminal justice system.


Marc Randazza is one such attorney that I report on, as I allege he is connected to organized crime in porn, human trafficking and supports pedophiles. I get tips constantly regarding all this and they are people I report on, Marc included. They are not victims and I have never ever posted anything and then sought a payment to retract what I posted, that is flat out malicious and false, PERIOD.


Yes I WON a huge victory, and no thanks to Marc Randazza who told me not to appeal, tried to force me to stop my appeal, conspired with the opposition to auction off my right to appeal and constantly attacks, berates, sues, gang stalks, bullies, and threatens me.


Randazza Says; “ she has revealed her true censorious nature and sought to have critical, factually verifiable information about her removed from the public record.” This is flat out bullshit. I don’t give a shit what he says about me, rant from the rooftops. However to put this in a judicial ruling and call it “factually verifiable information”,  now this is simply unlawful, unethical, slanderous, defamatory as a matter of law and certainly unconstitutional. IT IS NOT Factual nor Verifiable.


There are no victims and if some feel they are victims of me being an extortionist than a Ninth Circuit Civil Court is not going to help them, try the FBI, the Department of Justice instead.


Oh Ya here we have a victim crying out now, let’s take a look;


“Randazza is yet one more of Cox’s victims, and has been subject to Cox’s
extortive scheme. As set forth in the brief accompanying this motion, Randazza and other members of his family are also engaged in litigation against Cox in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Randazza v. Cox, Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL. Randazza’s action was brought to bring an end to the extortionate conduct Cox has levied against him, and the harassment Cox has engaged in against his wife and even his toddler daughter.”


WOW, Randazza is a victim of Crystal Cox’s extortion scheme, and this happened 2 years ago and he did not file criminal charges and he is an attorney? Hmm.. oh and Cox attacked his toddler daughter and he did not contact the police, the FBI?


Cox harassed his wife and toddler? Really? Or did Cox call his wife a slut, as Randazza defended Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a slut. oh and the attack on a toddler is a flat out, no proof lie, in order to get NPR, Forbes and other sympathy for poor porn, pedophile supporting attorney THUG Marc Randazza.


Oh and WOW, breaking NEWS, Randazza says, “Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL. Randazza’s action was brought to bring an end to the extortionate conduct Cox has levied against him” Geez and he filed a civil case to shut down massive online speech of Crystal Cox that spoke critical of him. Wow, the whole Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein is now about extortion, really? Does that make sense? Isn’t extortion a felony, why not go through the criminal process? Oh, I know because Marc Randazza owns the Civil Process, or thinks he does.


See Marc Randazza threatened me, attacked me, tried to force me not to appeal, tormented me, was massively jealous I chose Eugen Volokh over him and pissed off that I bought MarcRandazza.com and did not do waht he told me to do when he told me to do it. SO he launched a 2 years and counting cyber attack on me, lawsuit attack, WIPO attack, and his buddies have massive hate blogs and have emailed me and texted me threats Yet he sued me to stop my harassment campaign, guess he misses the “richness” of the irony on that one.


I guess all I can say to all that is Liar Liar Pants on Fire.


I will share with you and Poke some fun at Randazzle’s perjured declaration of non-fact, coming soon.


Full Defamatory, Ridiculous Document Quoted Above



Eugene Volokh’s Opposition, Response to Marc Randazza’s
leave to file his Amicus Rant


Looks to Me that Marc Randazza gets his ass kicked on that one.



Here is Marc’s dribbling Reply to Eugene’s Opposition, oops could have used some more case law there dipshit.


WOW, what a Document. Sure does seem like a ranting protest to me.


A tantrum, to get judges to violate law and infringe
on the rights of litigants because Marc Randazza says so.


So funny, in Marc Randazza's Ninth Circuit Rant, he says "doth protest too much". Odd because the case has nothing to do with him and his only motive is to paint Cox out to be a criminal without going through the criminal justice system. Marc Randazza, not involved in the case, files a ranting, accusing, perjured Amicus Brief, another words kicking and screaming and protesting. Then when his brief gets a response filing, well he calls that "doth protest too much"


Even though there is no lower court record of the crime of Extortion. Marc Wants it LAW. Marc wants Cox is an Extortionist in a Ninth Circuit Ruling simply because he says so and to cover up his own unethical, unconstitutional, seriously over reaching behavior. And then says “doth protest too much”, about those who have been in the case for 2 years on appeal. Hmmm.. who is that is really protesting too much and therefore drawing attention to his own behavior and abuse of the court process.
Here is an online Statement from Crystal Cox, in Support of the Ninth Circuit Motion to Rehear and Redact the judicial panels over reaching statements aKa “pot shots” at Defendant Crystal Cox.


Here is Excerpts from Marc Randazza’s Reply to
Eugene Volokhs Opposition, Response.
“Randazza does not even seek for the Court to take notice of the WIPO panel’s or Montana Board of Realty Regulation’s ultimate decisions – just that they made factual findings.”


They were not factual findings on the allegation of Extortion, these cases were not a cause of action or complaint about extortion. They were agency law for real estate, and WIPO was a domain dispute, a trademark dispute and Nevada was about the Lanham Act and copyright issues. There are no factual findings to the allegation of extortion, whatsoever.


“ She just does not want it done. Cox’s only possible  Further, Cox’s assertion that these documents should be hidden from the record
Case: 12-35238 02/04/2014 ID: 8966120 DktEntry: 52 Page: 4 of 5
motivation to hide this information from the Court’s view, by relying on legal doctrines inapposite to Randazza’s argument, is to conceal the true nature of her actions from her victims and the public at large.”


So Marc Randazza wants you to believe that the Ninth Circuit is the place to protect the public at large from felons engaged in the criminal act of extortion? WOW.


Cox does not want it hidden, Cox wants facts in a Ninth Circuit Judicial Ruling. If the judges have convicted Cox then take out the word apparently and just do it.


See, the facts are, there is no Extortion and there was NEVER a blog post put up by Cox, in her million blog posts over a decade that Cox put up to ask for payment to take down. This simply never happened nor was ever a motive of Crystal Cox, me, EVER.


Is the Ninth Circuit Civil Court of Appeals, the “record” for extortion convictions?


There is no way that “Crystal COX is an EXTORTIONIST” can be hidden there Randazzle, you made sure those false and defamatory statements published to a third party were spread far and wide, over and over for 2 years and counting… oh and you had actual malice as you were involved, and you were my attorney. So ya, you are Liable as a matter of law for the harm you have done to me, but hey, who cares, Marc Randazza rules the courts and has NO LIABILITY to His Clients, no respect for his clients, and certainly no accountability so it’s all good.


“Ultimately, Cox’s goal is to erase this important factual observation from the Court’s Opinion, so that she may attempt to wield this decision as evidence of the Court’s imprimatur upon her extortion scheme. The Court should decline to grant Cox this privilege, as every adjudicative body that has examined her conduct has reached the same conclusion: Cox is an extortionist.”


Ya.. ummm.. NOT.


Cox is asking for due process. Cox tried to get investigations by authorities in the Nevada case and Randazza and his friend the Judge, Judge Gloria Navarro “doth protest way too much”. And so, NOPE, no criminal investigation, but I would like one, welcome one.


I am certainly not trying to hide that the world believes I am an extortionist. I am trying to show how attorneys, judges and controlled media paint out bloggers exposing corruption to be the ones guilty of corruption and no due process is necessary to do so.


There is no “factual” observation, there is an observation based on Marc Randazza’s version of facts in order to torment, harass, silence, intimidate, and suppress the speech of his former client Crystal Cox, who is tattlin’ on his dumb, egotistical, greasy porn scum ass.


Oh and no worries of my “attempt to wield” I will damn sure be doing that. As I will file Department of Justice Complaints, FBI Complaints, Lawsuits, Bar Complaints and everything I possibly can to PROTECT the public from attorneys such as Marc Randazza and Judges such as Gloria Navarro and Loretta Preska and a whole lot of other Judges. As well as rogue, lawless attorneys such as NOT NEUTRAL WIPO panelist Peter L. Michaelson.


Yep, let the wielding begin.


No matter what this ruling is. I will be up on them thar white horses wielding my WIN and protecting the innocent from Porn SCUM, Evil Assholes such as Marc Randazza and overreaching, rogue, above the law bankruptcy Trustees such as Kevin Padrick.


Oh and NO adjudicative body has ever adjudicated the allegation of Extortion nor even looked at who accused me or what evidence they had to do so. And no conclusion was reached that “Cox is an Extortionist” from a court that had investigated or adjudicated Cox for Extortion.


Here is a link to Marc Randazza’s Neener Neener to Eugene, then pulls my hair and runs back off to the playground, REPLY.


Just because a rogue, aggressive attorney says over and over that “Cox is an Extortionist” does not make it so. Do Your Homework, Investigate.


So Folks, check your facts, or join the lynch mob, whatever. But either way, surely you want the Ninth Circuit to Obey the Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, don’t ya?

Crystal Cox's Statement in Support of Motion to Rehear, Redat


Here is Crystal Cox’s statement After Her Win


Here is a bit about the motion to Redact





Click Below for a live Version of the Above and stay tuned for Lot's more on what really Drives Marc Randazza and why he really "doth protest too much".
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PJLtqD3SQ_twfQdTClEHNgP-Kt3scT0n6EewWWcNF-Y/edit
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)