Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Pro Se Litigant Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox filed Federal RICO Complaint. Cox Vs. Randazza; Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Jurisdiction: Diversity Case Filed by Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox, Connected to District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL

District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Randazza V. Cox, Docket Entry 89 States, “Defendant's Counter Complaint is STRICKEN. Defendant may only file her Counter Complaint as a separate lawsuit. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 2/22/13.” I, Pro Se Litigant Crystal L. Cox / Pro Se Defendant, Filed a "Separate Lawsuit As Per Court Order.

Here is that Filing, Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Jurisdiction

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-NJK Civil RICO Complaint, COX vs. Randazza. Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Jurisdiction: Diversity Case


Plaintiff's Opposition to Docket Entry 91 / Opposition 

to "RICO" Complaint Filing, Says;
"Defendant Cox’s request should be disregarded, as she has not properly filed her motion
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This Court already has held the above-captioned case to be
unrelated to Defendant Cox’s separate racketeering complaint and ordered that racketeering
complaint stricken from this suit. (ECF 89 at 3).

Cox’s filing the Motion serves only to waste Plaintiffs’ and this Court’s time, providing
further support that this Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Revoke Cox’s Electronic Filing
Privileges. (ECF 69) Cox has consented to the motion. (ECF 88) Furthermore, given that Cox is clearly now demonstrating herself to be a vexatious litigant, this Court should consider stronger corrective action beyond the motion filed in ECF 69.

Because Defendant Cox improperly filed her Motion for Leave to Continue In Forma
Pauperis, Plaintiffs respectfully requests the Court deny Cox’s Motion."

"Dated: February 25, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Ronald D. Green
Ronald D. Green, NV Bar #7360
Randazza Legal Group"


Pro Se Defendant Crystal L. Cox's Reply to 

Plaintiff's Opposition to Docket Entry 91,
Opposition to "RICO" Complaint Filing.


Reply to Response in Opposition of Document 91


February 26th, 2013 Court Ruling to Allow Opening of New Civil Action

"Document Number:94

Docket Text:

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro, on 2/26/2013. By Deputy Clerk: AMW.

Pursuant to the Court's Order (ECF No. [89]) Striking Defendant Crystal Cox's Amended Counter Complaint and for good cause appearing, the Court hereby finds that Defendant's Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. [91]) should be construed as a request to commence a separate civil action. Thus, the Court hereby directs the Clerk's Office to use Defendant's filing, ECF No. [91], to open a new civil action."

New Case Details


Cox vs. Randazza, et al.,
Assigned to: Judge James C. Mahan
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe
Demand: $100,000,000,000
Cause: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Date Filed: 02/24/2013
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Diversity




Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act Defined for Readers


"The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually do it.
RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.
It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar, which featured a notorious gangster named Rico. The original drafter of the bill, G. Robert Blakey, refused to confirm or deny this.[1] G. Robert Blakey remains an expert on RICO;[2] his former student Michael Goldsmith also gained a reputation as one of the nation's leading RICO experts.[3]"

United States District Court
District of Nevada (Las Vegas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-NJK

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-NJK Court Docket February 24th 2013

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-NJK Court Docket February 24th 2013

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-NJK 
RICO Research Links

Civil RICO: A Manual for Federal Attorneys
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/civrico.pdf

 Posted Here by
Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)