More from Investigative Blogger Monica Foster
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Randazza Legal Group and Diane Duke of the Free Speech Coalition, also Connected to Kenneth P. White of Brown, White and Newhouse and Stalker Ari Bass aKa Michael Whiteacre us fraud on the courts, threats and bullying to silence whistle blowers in the porn industry..
Kurt Treptow aka Kurt Brackob, Marc Randazza, Diana Duke, Michael Whiteacre... the Los Angeles Porn Industry moving to Las Vegas, and the harassment of BULLY Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group.
Ivan Chicken Legs Threatens Porn Industry Insider, Investigative Blogger Monica Foster. Randazza Legal Group and Diane Duke of the Free Speech Coalition, also Connected to Kenneth P. White of Brown, White and Newhouse and Stalker Ari Bass aKa Michael Whiteacre.
Expose Marc Randazza, Diana Duke and The Free Speech Coalition
For More Information, Check Out
Saturday, February 15, 2014
"Ari Bass aka Michael Whiteacre monitoring Monica Foster’s webcam for Marc Randazza?" Monica Foster, Investigative Blogger Reporting
In 2011, it came to the attention of Alexandra Mayers aka Monica Foster that Randazza Legal Group employee James Malcolm DeVoy was working with and assisting Ari Bass aka Michael Whiteacre (of The Real Pornwikileaks) in his stalking of anti-porn activist Shelley Lubben.
As of today (February 15, 2014) Bass / Whiteacre has made it known publicly that he is monitoring and recording Alexandra Mayers on her live webcam (of which she performs solo independent live shows as Monica Foster).Bass / Whiteacre has an extensive history of stalking, harassing and threatening Alexandra Mayers and her family members along with various other camgirls, pornstars, ex pornstars and anti-porn activists.
Ari Bass aka Michael Whiteacre tweeting a screen shot from Alexandra Mayers aka Monica Foster’s live webcam on Streamate 2/15/2014. A recording of the show would reflect that Alexandra was sober at the time.
This development is on the heels of Alexandra Mayers making it clear she will be taking legal action against Randazza Legal Group and the privately owned company GoDaddy.
As of February 13, 2014 it came to Alexandra Mayers’ attention, that Marc Randazza abused the United States legal and court system in conjunction with GoDaddy in attempt to subpoena her personal information. Randazza it appears has withdrawn the subpoena and his employee attorney Ronald D. Green has admitted fault in the matter to Crystal Cox.
As of current it appears that Ari Bass may be monitoring Alexandra Mayers aka Monica Foster’s live cam shows on behalf of Randazza Legal Group (Marc Randazza specifically). In addition Ari Bass has stated on his twitter he is relocating to the Las Vegas, NV area (fairly close to where Randazza Legal Group offices located).
It is advised that independent solo webcam performers use extreme caution if contacted by (and not work with) Bass / Whiteacre or anyone attached to Randazza Legal Group"
Source
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Ideal Image Management, Alicia Silver Productions, Jason Toler aka Tee Reel, Corey Carnes, Mike South of MikeSouth.com, Ari Bass aka Michael Whiteacre and Sean Tompkins of TheRealPornWikiLeaks; Monica Foster, Investigative Blogger Reporting.
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Marc Randazza Crystal Cox War Rages On. Marc Randazza and his Buddy Scott H. Greenfield (SHG) thinks that THEY control the client. This is NOT Ethical nor Constitutional say's Crystal Cox.
Marc Randazza and his gang stalking attorney buddies blog, file motions, lie to media, lie to WIPO and create evidence to use in their cases against litigants that is "made up". This also works to force settlements and to pressure insiders and whistleblowers to SHUT UP.
Marc Randazza, tried to make me sit down and shut up in my case, so I FIRED HIM, and went with Eugene Volokh to be the face of this massive human rights and constitutional rights issue.
Scott Greenfield, Marc Randazza, Jordan Rushie, Ken White at PopeHat.com and more of the "gang" Seem to think it is ethical and lawful to treat clients badly and violate their constitutional and human rights along the way. Their theory seems to be We, the LAWYERS control the Clients and they Pay Us To Do It. And the client must sit down and shut up, have no voice and do as we say, then pay us our billable hours on time.
So I agree with this person below, as it is NOT right to Control your client, even if Pro Bono, you work for the clients best interest and the best interest of the Greater Good.
Oh but Marc Randazza's buddy JUDGE Gloria Navarro FORCES those who are Pro BONO to pay Randazza Legal Group anyway, as shown in the link below and J. Malcom DeVoy of Randazza Legal Group.
http://stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/2013/03/randazza-legal-group-offers-to.html
"The author of this blog post, one Scott Greenfield, seems blissfully unaware that the main takeaway from it isn’t “what the hell is wrong with Eugene Volokh?” but rather “memo: never, ever hire this blogger to be my lawyer.”
http://thusbloggedanderson.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/lady-your-case-is-over-when-i-say-its-over-im-your-lawyer/
"Tom Freeland (@NMissC)
"thusbloggedanderson
FEBRUARY 5, 2014 AT FEBRUARY 5, 2014
.....
… “When we are retained on appeal for the purpose of seeking reversal of an adverse judgment, our core representation is to obtain that reversal.”
Miss. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.2(a): “A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.”
MRPC 1.2(c): “A lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation if the client gives informed consent.”
Scott H. Greenfield: “I agree that the motion has some merit, and that the court’s cite to a newspaper article was inadequate.”
SHG wants to argue that the objective is just “get the decision reversed” and that he doesn’t have to do anything that’s not a means to that end. He is free to draft his representation agreements to that effect. However, taken literally, that means that (for instance) the court could rule for the appellant but also, say, issue a show-cause order why the appellant should not be sanctioned on some issue, and the lawyer could shrug and say “good luck with that, you’re on your own.”
SHG concedes that Cox’s motion “has some merit.” So as her lawyer, Volokh is supposed to tell her, sorry lady, even though your motion has merit and might be granted, I don’t feel like doing it?
The only time the “means” question comes up in my practice is that the client can’t instruct me to act unprofessionally (e.g., to refuse reasonable accommodation to opp. counsel who need a resetting or an extension). I’m retained against the other party, not against the other party’s lawyers.
Lawyer’s Creed (as adopted by Miss. Bar): ” I will strive to represent you as I would want to be represented and to be worthy of your trust.” It appears to me that Volokh is living up to that creed. We represent clients: we stand in their shoes: we put their interests above our own. I do not think SHG’s attitude passes the golden-rule test embodied in the creed."
"thusbloggedanderson
http://thusbloggedanderson.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/lady-your-case-is-over-when-i-say-its-over-im-your-lawyer/
At 14:30 note comment of Marc Randazza Slamming Eugene Volokh. At 12 Minutes you see Marc Randazza claiming that Volokh should CONTROL his client.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e35F0CkPjv4
More on What Drives Marc Randazza's Rage Against Blogger Crystal Cox
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PJLtqD3SQ_twfQdTClEHNgP-Kt3scT0n6EewWWcNF-Y/edit
Marc Randazza, tried to make me sit down and shut up in my case, so I FIRED HIM, and went with Eugene Volokh to be the face of this massive human rights and constitutional rights issue.
Scott Greenfield, Marc Randazza, Jordan Rushie, Ken White at PopeHat.com and more of the "gang" Seem to think it is ethical and lawful to treat clients badly and violate their constitutional and human rights along the way. Their theory seems to be We, the LAWYERS control the Clients and they Pay Us To Do It. And the client must sit down and shut up, have no voice and do as we say, then pay us our billable hours on time.
So I agree with this person below, as it is NOT right to Control your client, even if Pro Bono, you work for the clients best interest and the best interest of the Greater Good.
Oh but Marc Randazza's buddy JUDGE Gloria Navarro FORCES those who are Pro BONO to pay Randazza Legal Group anyway, as shown in the link below and J. Malcom DeVoy of Randazza Legal Group.
http://stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/2013/03/randazza-legal-group-offers-to.html
Blog Post Titled, “Lady, your case is over when *I* say it’s over – I’m your lawyer.”
"The author of this blog post, one Scott Greenfield, seems blissfully unaware that the main takeaway from it isn’t “what the hell is wrong with Eugene Volokh?” but rather “memo: never, ever hire this blogger to be my lawyer.”
Volokh apparently took pro bono a case defending an obnoxious blogger, and won. But the court wrote, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.” And Volokh then filed a motion to amend the op to remove the offending language.
Which Greenfield takes as what I trust is a metaphorical indication that Volokh is “in bed with” this Cox blogger, and that some improper motive must be at work, because hey, it’s not a substantive point, Volokh won, case should be over.
Which Greenfield takes as what I trust is a metaphorical indication that Volokh is “in bed with” this Cox blogger, and that some improper motive must be at work, because hey, it’s not a substantive point, Volokh won, case should be over.
That is not how TBA practices law – how ’bout y’all? I agree to take an appeal, it’s over when there’s no more relief to be had or the client says to call it quits.
UPDATE: Here is Pamela MacLean on the matter:
What Cox didn’t like was a single sentence in the opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz that stated, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”Last week, her lawyer Eugene Volokh asked the court to amend its opinion, not to change the substance of the ruling, but to delete the offending sentence. The claim of “payoffs” was based on a single New York Times article in 2011.“A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word ‘apparently,’ could be based on the record in a case, or authoritative finding 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,” Volokh wrote. He said there “seems to be no ‘history’ of ‘seeking payoffs’ claimed in the article, he said.Not surprisingly, some news outlets repeated the sentence but omitted the term “apparently,” he said. Journalists may perceive it as a factual finding, not just recitation of a newspaper column’s claim.
Good for Volokh."
Source of Posthttp://thusbloggedanderson.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/lady-your-case-is-over-when-i-say-its-over-im-your-lawyer/
Some Comments from the Blog Post
"Tom Freeland (@NMissC)
Here’s what we know from these posts:
1) Volkh has a client, and, consulting the client about legitimate goals, has acted on that client’s wishes about those legitimate goals.
2) Volkh understands that “having a client” is like being pregnant– you are or aren’t. Refusing to pursue the client’s legitimate goals in litigation one has undertaken is not being the client’s lawyer. This even extends to repulsive clients.
3) SHG is a blogger who appears to be a criminal defense lawyer, which means, presumably, that SHG has had the experience of pursuing the legitimate goals of repulsive clients, unless SHG has had an extremely unusual criminal practice.
4. SHG apparently admits that Volkh’s efforts as Cox’s lawyer, in affirming an important free speech issue, is a worthy thing.
5. SHG finds Cox repulsive from prior behavior, and therefore thinks Volkh should either decline to pursue Cox’s legitimate goals as a client or… I’m not sure or what. I’m also not sure what part of “a lawyer representing a client” SHG fails to understand, but am sure it’s an important part.
I hope that SHG stays out of those areas of law where some think they can represent a “cause” as distinct from the client whose case embodies that cause."
"thusbloggedanderson
FEBRUARY 5, 2014 AT FEBRUARY 5, 2014
.....
… “When we are retained on appeal for the purpose of seeking reversal of an adverse judgment, our core representation is to obtain that reversal.”
Miss. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.2(a): “A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.”
MRPC 1.2(c): “A lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation if the client gives informed consent.”
Scott H. Greenfield: “I agree that the motion has some merit, and that the court’s cite to a newspaper article was inadequate.”
SHG wants to argue that the objective is just “get the decision reversed” and that he doesn’t have to do anything that’s not a means to that end. He is free to draft his representation agreements to that effect. However, taken literally, that means that (for instance) the court could rule for the appellant but also, say, issue a show-cause order why the appellant should not be sanctioned on some issue, and the lawyer could shrug and say “good luck with that, you’re on your own.”
SHG concedes that Cox’s motion “has some merit.” So as her lawyer, Volokh is supposed to tell her, sorry lady, even though your motion has merit and might be granted, I don’t feel like doing it?
The only time the “means” question comes up in my practice is that the client can’t instruct me to act unprofessionally (e.g., to refuse reasonable accommodation to opp. counsel who need a resetting or an extension). I’m retained against the other party, not against the other party’s lawyers.
Lawyer’s Creed (as adopted by Miss. Bar): ” I will strive to represent you as I would want to be represented and to be worthy of your trust.” It appears to me that Volokh is living up to that creed. We represent clients: we stand in their shoes: we put their interests above our own. I do not think SHG’s attitude passes the golden-rule test embodied in the creed."
We find ourselves faced with people whose highest form of argument is to respond by calling the offending blogger stupid."
"thusbloggedanderson
I’m convinced.
… The latest batch of comments includes these gems:
Any trench lawyer knows this thing called “client control.” That’s where you say “Client, if you act like this, I am going to quit representing you.”
Right. Because the court has nothing to say about that.
At this point seems like the client is controlling Volkoh… not the other way around.
A client controlling the person representing her! How bizarre! As if the lawyer were just there to serve the client!"
Source of Above Post and Comments
A Video with some more Insights regarding Randazza's Rule of Law over Clients.
At 14:30 note comment of Marc Randazza Slamming Eugene Volokh. At 12 Minutes you see Marc Randazza claiming that Volokh should CONTROL his client.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e35F0CkPjv4
More on What Drives Marc Randazza's Rage Against Blogger Crystal Cox
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PJLtqD3SQ_twfQdTClEHNgP-Kt3scT0n6EewWWcNF-Y/edit
Friday, February 7, 2014
Crystal Cox Marc Randazza, Ninth Circuit Implies Cox is an Extortionist; Has Crystal Cox been convicted in the Criminal Justice System of Extortion? If not then a Ninth Circuit "pot shot" is NOT the Place to make this RULING. A Bit on the William Peacock version of Reality.
"Ninth Circuit Implies That She is an Extortionist
That subtle reference to Cox's extortionist tendencies is what Cox, and her famed counsel, Eugene Volokh, took issue with in their request for rehearing. They want the court to remove the sentence, which bears little relevance to the holding.
It also implies misconduct on her part, even with "apparently" preceding the claims. Volokh cites media reports where "apparently" was not repeated and argues that such an assertion, which relies on a single source, should not be included.
Scott Greenfield, at Simple Justice, is wondering why Volokh is still involved, now that the First Amendment remains intact, and the only issue remaining is the reputation of a blogger with a record of domain squatting, cyber-bullying, and extortion."
Source of Above and Full William Peacock Article
http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circuit/2014/02/update-protected-blogger-wants-elaboration-on-alleged-extortion.html
Crystal Cox Says; Folks, the Issue is NOT about Crystal Cox's reputation.
It is about setting a precedent that will chill the speech of ALL Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers and Whistleblower. It is about making a stand for what is right for the Liberty and Justice of all bloggers "breaking news" that big media refuses to. And reporting on corruption that big media does not dare to.
It is not lawful or constitutional to discredit these bloggers by a "pot shot" in a Ninth Circuit Appeal at an Investigative Blogger exposing corruption within the Justice System.
Here we have another attorney flat out saying that Crystal Cox is "with a record" of "extortion", when there is NO Record of Extortion. This is Marc Randazza's Gang Stalking attorney fraternity that distort the facts of cases in order to force settlements, control clients, and control the outcome of legal cases.
I Care that this does not happen to other Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers and Whistleblowers. As, I see extremely retaliation by attorneys and judges against bloggers exposing corruption, all the time.
I do not believe is it LAWFUL or the proper venue for Ninth Circuit Judges to make a ruling as important of this and simply toss in that a litigant is a criminal, without that litigant, in this case Crystal Cox, being given due process as a matter of law in the criminal justice system.
The accusation of extortion came from the attorneys Crystal Cox was reporting were acting unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional.
The alleged accusation of extortion have not been adjudicated in a court of law, nor has any extortion evidence been presented and reviewed in the criminal justice system. Crystal Cox is an Extortionist is simply something attorneys Marc Randazza, Kevin Padrick, and David Aman created in order to hide their own unethical and unconstitutional actions.
More on the Real Issues of this Motion to Rehear
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit
More on the Real Motives of Marc Randazza
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PJLtqD3SQ_twfQdTClEHNgP-Kt3scT0n6EewWWcNF-Y/edit
"Mark J. Randazza has a history with Cox. When he turned down her request for representation, she bought marcrandazzasucks.com, along with other domain names using his name.."
http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circuit/2014/02/update-protected-blogger-wants-elaboration-on-alleged-extortion.html
Folks, Marc Randazza seems to be telling attorneys that he turned me down at my request for representation, that is NOT True. He offered to represent me and told others at the First Amendment Bar that he represented me and had long conversations with Eugene Volokh, my current counsel, about his negotiations with the Opposition ( Obsidian's Attorneys).
I did NOT request Marc Randazza to represent me.
There are emails from him posted online and into evidence in Nevada, there is true "evidence" as to the FACT that Marc Randazza did not REFUSE to represent me. I chose Eugene Volokh as I wanted him to be the face of this masssively important social issue. Marc Randazza represented me for about a week, and I let him know he was FIRED. He acted "cool" about it, but then HE retaliated against ME, as the record clearly shows.
I did NOT buy domain names to "retaliate" because this asshole, porn scum attorney would not represent me. I bought domain names, which is my legal and constitutional right and started blogs to expose the aggressive, unethical, unconstitutional behavior and bullying of attorney Marc Randazza and warn the Public at Large. ( to REPORT on his activities, actions and connections to organized crime in the porn industry, and how he and his attorney friends bully insiders, porn actors, whistle blowers and anyone who threatens to expose them.)
I gave MarcRandazza.com to a Porn Industry Investigative Blogger, he posted her car make and model and insinuations of her dying. She was afraid and gave it back, I decided to stand up to Marc Randazza and stand up for all his VICTIMS.
"Or, better yet, the Ninth Circuit could properly take judicial notice of the orders of another court. And there are orders a plenty that describe Cox's conduct, including these two from Randazza's case:
Yet this same Marc Randazza wants an unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction he got against Blogger Crystal Cox, and the judges over reaching "pot shots" in a RULING to Grant Marc Randazza an Unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction that did not adjudicated Crystal Cox's First Amendment Rights, to be some proven, adjudicated evidence that Cox is guilty of the Felony Crime of Extortion? Oh the hypocrisy.
The most important aspect of the ruling and the whole point of my fighting to stay in the appeal no matter what Marc Randazza did over 2 years to STOP ME, was to END the monopoly of Free Speech in which Big Media had, to level the playing field in the courts and as a matter of law and constitutional rights between Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Whistleblowers AND traditional media, big media, mainstream media.
This is the most important aspect, as those reporting on the news that big media will not, and those reporting on corruption that traditional journalists cannot, NEED Equal Protection in the courts so that their SPEECH is not chilled. This is not about all bloggers, not about the rights of the criminals, this is about the Equal Rights, as a matter of law, of legal precedent for Bloggers to report the news and not be afraid of extreme and radical retaliation; especially by attorneys and judges who have all the power.
Cox v. WIPO and Peter L. Michaelson, WIPO Panelist
"Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations
and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.
See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech,
N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1."
That subtle reference to Cox's extortionist tendencies is what Cox, and her famed counsel, Eugene Volokh, took issue with in their request for rehearing. They want the court to remove the sentence, which bears little relevance to the holding.
It also implies misconduct on her part, even with "apparently" preceding the claims. Volokh cites media reports where "apparently" was not repeated and argues that such an assertion, which relies on a single source, should not be included.Scott Greenfield, at Simple Justice, is wondering why Volokh is still involved, now that the First Amendment remains intact, and the only issue remaining is the reputation of a blogger with a record of domain squatting, cyber-bullying, and extortion."
Source of Above and Full William Peacock Article
http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circuit/2014/02/update-protected-blogger-wants-elaboration-on-alleged-extortion.html
Crystal Cox Says; Folks, the Issue is NOT about Crystal Cox's reputation.
It is about setting a precedent that will chill the speech of ALL Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers and Whistleblower. It is about making a stand for what is right for the Liberty and Justice of all bloggers "breaking news" that big media refuses to. And reporting on corruption that big media does not dare to.It is not lawful or constitutional to discredit these bloggers by a "pot shot" in a Ninth Circuit Appeal at an Investigative Blogger exposing corruption within the Justice System.
Here we have another attorney flat out saying that Crystal Cox is "with a record" of "extortion", when there is NO Record of Extortion. This is Marc Randazza's Gang Stalking attorney fraternity that distort the facts of cases in order to force settlements, control clients, and control the outcome of legal cases.
The Issue is not about my personal reputation.
I don't care what anyone "thinks" of me, personally.
I care that Judges obey the LAW and the
Constitution of the United States of America.
Constitution of the United States of America.
I Care that this does not happen to other Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers and Whistleblowers. As, I see extremely retaliation by attorneys and judges against bloggers exposing corruption, all the time.
I do not believe is it LAWFUL or the proper venue for Ninth Circuit Judges to make a ruling as important of this and simply toss in that a litigant is a criminal, without that litigant, in this case Crystal Cox, being given due process as a matter of law in the criminal justice system.The accusation of extortion came from the attorneys Crystal Cox was reporting were acting unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional.
The alleged accusation of extortion have not been adjudicated in a court of law, nor has any extortion evidence been presented and reviewed in the criminal justice system. Crystal Cox is an Extortionist is simply something attorneys Marc Randazza, Kevin Padrick, and David Aman created in order to hide their own unethical and unconstitutional actions.
More on the Real Issues of this Motion to Rehear
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit
More on the Real Motives of Marc Randazza
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PJLtqD3SQ_twfQdTClEHNgP-Kt3scT0n6EewWWcNF-Y/edit
A Bit More BULL from the Article Quoted Above, oh and Flat Out Lies
"Mark J. Randazza has a history with Cox. When he turned down her request for representation, she bought marcrandazzasucks.com, along with other domain names using his name.."
http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circuit/2014/02/update-protected-blogger-wants-elaboration-on-alleged-extortion.html
Folks, Marc Randazza seems to be telling attorneys that he turned me down at my request for representation, that is NOT True. He offered to represent me and told others at the First Amendment Bar that he represented me and had long conversations with Eugene Volokh, my current counsel, about his negotiations with the Opposition ( Obsidian's Attorneys).
Marc Randazza DID NOT turn down a request by me.
I did NOT request Marc Randazza to represent me.
There are emails from him posted online and into evidence in Nevada, there is true "evidence" as to the FACT that Marc Randazza did not REFUSE to represent me. I chose Eugene Volokh as I wanted him to be the face of this masssively important social issue. Marc Randazza represented me for about a week, and I let him know he was FIRED. He acted "cool" about it, but then HE retaliated against ME, as the record clearly shows.
I did NOT buy domain names to "retaliate" because this asshole, porn scum attorney would not represent me. I bought domain names, which is my legal and constitutional right and started blogs to expose the aggressive, unethical, unconstitutional behavior and bullying of attorney Marc Randazza and warn the Public at Large. ( to REPORT on his activities, actions and connections to organized crime in the porn industry, and how he and his attorney friends bully insiders, porn actors, whistle blowers and anyone who threatens to expose them.)
I gave MarcRandazza.com to a Porn Industry Investigative Blogger, he posted her car make and model and insinuations of her dying. She was afraid and gave it back, I decided to stand up to Marc Randazza and stand up for all his VICTIMS.
Some More William Peacock BULL
"Or, better yet, the Ninth Circuit could properly take judicial notice of the orders of another court. And there are orders a plenty that describe Cox's conduct, including these two from Randazza's case:
- A district court in Nevada noted that Cox has been "shown to have engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting and cyber-extortion."
- A World Intellectual Property Organization opinion noted that "Respondent then offers to provide 'reputation management' services to her target in return for a fee. Such websites are not 'criticism sites' but merely a pretext for the Respondent's bad faith extortionate use."
THERE were NO "properly adjudicated facts" for the crime of extortion at any time.
The Nevada Court case is another example of Judges simply accusing Cox of extortion in a "pot shot" in a ruling that gave Marc Randazza an unconstitutional preliminary injunction against blogger Crystal Cox.
You know the same Marc Randazza who said:
"“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."
More on this Issue
Here is Marc Randazza's hypocritical brief, even though he Got a Preliminary Injunction against me, blogger Crystal Cox.
And the Same Marc Randazza who WON this ruling
"Injuction against blogger critical of Miami Heat owner is overturned by appeals court"
Yet this same Marc Randazza wants an unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction he got against Blogger Crystal Cox, and the judges over reaching "pot shots" in a RULING to Grant Marc Randazza an Unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction that did not adjudicated Crystal Cox's First Amendment Rights, to be some proven, adjudicated evidence that Cox is guilty of the Felony Crime of Extortion? Oh the hypocrisy.
Would you want this to happen to you folks, or would you want due process of LAW?
Is the WIPO "pot shots" evidence that Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein are Extortionists? NO
Oh and YEP, WIPO also takes a "pot shot" and flat out accuse Cox of Extortion and the man she was reporting on, Eliot Bernstein of iViewit Technology, which is the biggest technology theft in the world. WIPO was about Domain Names, and was not about extortion. There was no adjudication for the crime of extortion in a WIPO arbritration panel process. WIPO is not a criminal court. WIPO did not formal investigation into the crime of extortion. A WIPO attorney, a friend and connection of Marc Randazzas from INTA, simply took "pot shots" at Cox and Bernstein to help Marc Randazza paint Cox out as an Extortionist and to discredit the Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Technology Story.
A Bit More ...
"As Randazza notes, one of the most important aspects of the Ninth Circuit's opinion was that it "sent the signal that even criminals deserve First Amendment rights -- thus dispelling the usual truism that 'bad facts make bad law.'" Well played, Mr. Randazza."
Crystal Cox says; it is NOT bad law to want the LAW to apply to ALL Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers and Whistleblowers Equally. It is not bad law to want a clean ruling that affects all those on the ground out there exposing injustice every day. This ruling affects their life, their family, their safety and it is a matter of LAW and Constitutional Rights. Not what the world thinks of me personal, I really do not give a shit what anyone thinks of me. I care about a clean ruling, based in the rule of law rather then the rule of overreaching attorneys and pot shot taking judges that retaliate against those exposing corruption in our justice system and among attorney fraternities.
This is about people's real lives and NOT about Marc Randazza's EGO Trip
Marc Randazza may want some First Amendment ruling that says criminals have First Amendment rights and well he has those as he defends the First Amendment of criminals and yes criminals rightly do have First Amendment. However, Crystal Cox is not a CRIMINAL.
 |
This is the most important aspect, as those reporting on the news that big media will not, and those reporting on corruption that traditional journalists cannot, NEED Equal Protection in the courts so that their SPEECH is not chilled. This is not about all bloggers, not about the rights of the criminals, this is about the Equal Rights, as a matter of law, of legal precedent for Bloggers to report the news and not be afraid of extreme and radical retaliation; especially by attorneys and judges who have all the power.
A Bit More on WIPO, and the Civil Conspiracy, RICO against Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox
Here is the Florida Case, Cox v. Randazza Legal Group
Cox v. WIPO and Peter L. Michaelson, WIPO Panelist
Oh and William Peacock's Last Line
"It's a hilarious ending to one of the least sympathetic people to ever make legal history."
Yes I have made legal history. And I have taken this POWERFUL stand for the rights of all who expose corruption and are victims of corruption. This is a massive constitutional rights issue, human rights issue, and incredibly important as to the equal rights of bloggers to EXPOSE CORRUPTION, as a matter of law.
And NOTE, I don't need or want sympathy from anyone, especially all of you gang stalking, lawless attorney THUGS and the Judges you convince of your "scheme". I have stood without your support my whole life, I think I can handle it if you THUGS and Liars don't like me.
And NOTE, I don't need or want sympathy from anyone, especially all of you gang stalking, lawless attorney THUGS and the Judges you convince of your "scheme". I have stood without your support my whole life, I think I can handle it if you THUGS and Liars don't like me.
I, Crystal L. Cox, DEMAND that Judges and Attorneys Obey the LAW
and Obey the Constitution of the United States of America, PERIOD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)