Sunday, November 30, 2014

Jennifer Kimpton; a Human Trafficking Survivor VOICE for Victims; Survivors Ink; Anti-Human Trafficking Advocate.

Make a Stand for women and children sold into sex slavery. Speak Up. Be a Voice

'Property Of' Permanently On Her Groin. Amazingly, This Story Has A Happy Ending."

"Tattoos have meaning. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule (that ice cream cone you got on your ankle at a drunken beach party during spring break), but the ideal scenario, tattoos represent a choice made of free will to have something beautiful and meaningful permanently engraved on your body. Unfortunately for many women, free will and beauty aren't part of the equation.

Meet Jennifer Kimpton


Jen had a pretty rough childhood, experiencing poverty, abuse, and sexual assault. As she grew up, Jen did whatever she needed to do to survive, and after a series of abusive relationships, she felt like she had finally met The One. 
But things aren't always what they seem. Her boyfriend, a man who she trusted and loved, a man who abused her and got her hooked on intravenous drugs, ultimately sold her to a gang for drugs and money.

Her story, while absolutely tragic, is not unlike that of thousands of other women and children sold into sex slavery each year.

While it is impossible to get an accurate count of exactly how many, here's what we do know: The Polaris Project estimates that there are 27 million people in modern-day slavery around the world. 
That same data says that 70% of the women in that group are victims of sex trafficking. And yes, it does happen here in the United States. In fact, Jen's story, which starts in her youth, highlights one of the saddest facts: It 2000, it was estimated that in 244,000 children and youth in the United States were at risk of child sexual exploitation. (I know that was a lot of really depressing information right up front, but trust me, it gets better and less stat-heavy. Just needed to set the stage.)
Needless to say, Jen experienced some pretty terrible horrors during her time being trafficked, not the least of which was something known as "branding." Tattoo artists were placed in the drug houses to brand the girls with gang insignia and other markings to claim ownership over them.
 Jen ended up with gang signs on her neck, several tattoos with the name of her boyfriend, and in one of the sickest moves of all, the phrase "Property of" imprinted right above her genital area. 
Those tattoos remained long after she was able to break free and were constant reminders of her sexual exploitation nightmare. Wait. Did you catch that? The use of the word "was"? That's right.

Today Jennifer is a survivor."




Source and Full Story

David Suzuki's grandson on Burnaby Mountain. The Police work for Big Companies and NOT for the PEOPLE Period. the Bringing Back Goddess Church stands for Clean Water, Fresh Air, and Clean Soil. And for Mother Earth. Goddess Gaia.

It is NOT Radical to Save Mother Earth and her Tribes, her People.

STOP using Police Force to SILENCE Public Opinion and Public Opposition.

David Suzuki's grandson on #BurnabyMountain




For More Information

https://www.facebook.com/pipeupagainstenbridge?fref=photo

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Kinder-Morgan-Caretakers-Of-The-Mountain/1508198892753283?pnref=story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8np5Cz_SJQg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfOXh7Ad_HQ

Clean Water, Fresh Air, and Clean Soil is our Birth Right

Stand Up for Clean Water, Fresh Air, and Clean Soil

Friday, November 28, 2014

Summary Judgement DENIAL clearly shows that Marc Randazza has NO Case against Crystal Cox nor did he EVER. He flat out lied to the courts to STEAL massive online content and search engine ranking, and got away with it, 2 years and counting. Crystal Cox ALLEGES that Marc Randazza controls the courts. She asks WHY?

2 years into Marc Randazza's scamoid attack against a blogger he doesn't like nor approve of so he lied over and over to big media, NPR, Forbes and to multiple legal bloggers and of course his Circle Jerk Groupies so they would ruin the life of that blogger for their Hero, Riddler Randazza, the world's most hypocritical attorney.

Marc Randazza LOVES Free Speech. Oh I mean he loves to make money or get his big fat EGO stroked from defending the speech of those he supports such as a Guide on how to be a Pedophile, or say a domain name such as GlenBeckRapedandMurderedaYoungGirlin1990.com, or say defending Rush Limbaugh to call Sandra Fluke a slut,

Yet Marc Randazza painted blogger Crystal Cox out to be an evil monster for buying a domain name and never using it, oh and calling his slut wife a slut, my bad.

All simply because he wanted to teach me a lesson and make an enemy of me. But you see, I work for the HOLY SPIRIT and I am here to bring light so Mr. Darkness YOU LOSE. You have been exposed and even if your circle jerk groupies kill me, beat me, take out my knee caps, come to my town, jail me and follow through with all those threats, oh well, it's in God's hands now, the Truth is free flowing as a river to the sea of your inevitable RICO. (i like that River RICO, along the banks of Pattern and History Galore.)

Randazza v. Blogger Crystal Cox Case; Authentification of Blogs "Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, and Transcripts of YouTube Videos - Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence - Periodicals: Authentication vs. Hearsay"

This is a VERY Important Ruling in the Randazza v. Cox case regarding Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, Transcripts of Videos, and Authentication of Email Evidence. This is the ONLY Judge in about 15 plus of my cases that actual ruled on these issues as a matter of law and not simply as a matter of not wanting to offend or piss off the porn industry or the Randazza Legal Groupies.

Crystal Cox Video on Judicial Order showing that Marc Randazza SUED Crystal Cox
with no adjudicated fact, no basis in law, he really did not have a trademark, there was no confusion, there was no commercialism by Crystal Cox and well it's clear to see Randazza sued Crystal Cox as an act of REVENGE, Intimidation and Harassment.



"Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, and Transcripts of YouTube Videos — Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence — Periodicals: Authentication vs. Hearsay

Randazza v. Cox, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49762 (D. Nev. April 10, 2014):
This cybersquatting case arises out of the alleged targeting of Plaintiffs Marc Randazza, his wife Jennifer, and their young daughter Natalia, by Defendant Crystal Cox, a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger." The Randazzas allege that Cox and Defendant Eliot Bernstein have engaged in an online harassment campaign to extort them by registering dozens of internet domain names that incorporate the Randazzas' names and then demanding they agree to purchase Cox's "reputation management" services to remove this allegedly defamatory material from the internet and rehabilitate their cyber reputations. Cox maintains that this lawsuit was instituted to harass her and stifle her First Amendment freedoms  [*2] of speech and expression.
The Randazza Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their claims against Cox. But as one of those claims is legally untenable, and genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the remainder, their motion is denied. Cox has pending her own motion for summary judgment on her original "Counter-Complaint," which has since been stricken and supplanted (in part) by a new amended counterclaim. ***
In November 2012, the Randazzas sued Cox and Bernstein alleging violations of individual cyberpiracy protections for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 8131,  [*3] 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 claims were based on allegations that Cox and Bernstein registered several domain names containing Plaintiffs' names, that Cox's blog posts contained objectionable characterizations of the Plaintiffs, and that these acts were designed to extort and harass the Randazzas and capitalize on and damage the goodwill Marc Randazza claims he built up in his own name as a prominent First Amendment attorney.
Bernstein has not appeared or answered the allegations, but Cox has. She contends that she registered the domain names to control public relations information when she thought Marc Randazza would represent her in another lawsuit. Cox also strongly objects to Plaintiffs' characterization of her motivation and actions as "extortion."
The tortured history of this case is rife with procedural maneuvering by both sides. All parties have disrupted the Court's timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the orderly administration of justice by sandbagging the docket  [*4] with multiple impertinent, legally unsupported, and frivolous filings. The instant motions were not spared from these tactics. Despite Mr. Randazza's self-proclaimed prominence as a First Amendment attorney and being represented by independent counsel, Plaintiffs have failed to authenticate more than half of their proffered exhibits in support of their motion; and half of the authenticated ones are immaterial to this motion. Equally confounding is that pro seCox has submitted a 255-page nonsensical summary judgment motion and a 183-page opposition to Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, neither of which includes any relevant legal authority or complies with this Court's rules of procedure and evidence. In short, all parties have fallen far short of sustaining their initial summary judgment burdens and both motions are denied.
A. Authentication of Evidence
The first step in analyzing these motions is to determine what evidence the Court may consider in evaluating whether the parties met their respective burdens. In Orr v. Bank of America, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "made it clear that 'unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for summary judgment.'"6 To authenticate  [*5] a document, the proponent must offer "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.'"7 As the summary judgment procedure is the pretrial functional equivalent of a directed-verdict motion, it requires consideration of the same caliber of evidence that would be admitted at trial;8 thus, it is insufficient for a litigant to merely attach a document to a summary judgment motion or opposition without affirmatively demonstrating its authenticity.
6   Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 533 (9th Cir. 2011) (citingOrr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 733 (9th Cir. 2002).
7   Las Vegas Sands, 632 F.3d at 532-33 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)).
8   Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (citing Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 745 n.11 (1983)).
***
1. Periodicals
Plaintiffs offer at Exhibit B an article from Forbes Magazine. Printed material "purporting to be a newspaper or periodical" is self-authenticating.11 Thus, this article is self-authenticating. Its contents, however, are hearsay not subject to any exception. Accordingly, the periodical is not admissible for summary judgment purposes.
11   Fed. R. Evid. 902(6).
2. Websites
Few courts have considered how a website print-out or blog posting may be authenticated. Those that have considered the issue have found "website print-outs [were] sufficiently authenticated where the proponent declared that they were true and correct copies of pages on the  [*8] internet and the print-outs included their webpage URL address and the dates printed."12
12   Haines v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 1:10-cv-01763-SKO, 2012 WL 1143648 *7 (E.D. Cal. April 4, 2012).
The websites contained in Exhibits E, K, Q, R, S, and T have been properly authenticated under this standard because Plaintiff Marc Randazza has attested that they are true and correct copies and the print-outs include the webpage URL address and the dates the websites were printed. However, Plaintiffs have not authenticated any of the purported website contents in Exhibits D, G, M, O, and P. Although Mr. Randazza has attested that these exhibits are true and correct copies and the print-outs include the webpage URL address, absent are the dates the webpages were printed. Without the print dates, these website printouts have not been properly authenticated, and the Court will not consider them.
3. Letters, Emails, and Text Messages
A document may be authenticated by personal knowledge "by a witness who wrote it, signed it, used it, or saw others do so."14 Although circumstantial evidence--like an email's context, email address, or previous  [*9] correspondence between the parties--may help to authenticate an email,15 the most direct method of authentication is a statement from its author or an individual who saw the author compose and send the email.16
14   Orr, 285 F.3d at 774 n.8 (citing references omitted).
15   United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2000).
16   United States v. Fluker, 698 F.3d 988, 999 (7th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiffs have authenticated the letter sent from Mr. Randazza to Defendant Bernstein presented in Exhibit A by Randazza's affidavit stating that he wrote and signed the letter. Similarly, Mr. Randazza's curriculum vitae and the "About" page of his blog attached as Exhibits I and J have been properly authenticated because Mr. Randazza is a person with personal knowledge and he wrote his curriculum vitae and the "About" page of his own blog. Plaintiffs have also authenticated via circumstantial evidence the emails between Cox and Mr. Randazza contained in Exhibit H because the email contains sufficient indicia of authenticity by context, the email addresses, and previous correspondence between the parties.
But Plaintiffs have not authenticated the purported emails between Cox and Dylan Energy CEO  [*10] Martin Cain contained in Exhibit C. Although Plaintiffs attempt to authenticate Exhibit C via circumstantial evidence, there is a gap in the email chain. Mjr@randazza.com purportedly received the forwarded email from matt.baer@dylanenergy.com; savvybroker@ yahoo.com (the email associated with Cox) sent the email to dylanchpmc@verizon.net. Therefore, it is unclear how the person in control of the email address matt.baer@dylanenergy.com came to be in possession of an email originally addressed to dylanchpmc@verizon.net. Without some explanation of the gap in this email chain by someone with personal knowledge, there is insufficient circumstantial indicia of authenticity for the Court to consider this document.
Plaintiffs have not authenticated the text message screen shot in Exhibit A either. The screen shot purporting to be a text-message exchange between Messrs. Randazza and Bernstein has not been authenticated because it does not have circumstantial indicia of authenticity. It is unclear which phone numbers sent or received the messages or to whom those phone numbers belonged when the screen shot was taken, or who took the screen shot. Without this type of supporting evidence, the  [*11] Court cannot consider the text message in Exhibit A.
***
5. YouTube Video
Exhibit N is a transcript of a YouTube video. 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.20 To meet this exception, the evidence must be accompanied by "a certification of their custodian or other qualified person that satisfies 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'; and (C) that 'making the record was a regular practice of that activity.'"21
20   United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 132-33 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding the YouTube  [*13] video in question was self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902 business records).
21   Id. at 133.
The transcript of the YouTube video contained in Exhibit N has not been properly authenticated. Although Mr. Randazza has attested that it is a true and correct copy of a transcript of a video posted on YouTube.com, he has not established that he is a person with personal knowledge who prepared the transcript, nor has he established when it was prepared and that it is complete and accurate. 
To the extent that the YouTube.com video itself is offered as evidence, it similarly has not been authenticated because Plaintiffs have 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 has not been properly authenticated and cannot be considered.
With these evidentiary limitations, the Court now turns to the merits of Plaintiffs' summary judgment arguments."

Source
 http://www.jha.com/us/blog/?blogID=2777

Link to Motion Denying Summary Judgement
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

Thursday, November 27, 2014

"We had every right to publish information of public concern as established in Obsidian v Cox regarding Free Speech. "

"On November 4th, 2014, OpUniteBlue.com was suspended by GoDaddy due to a DMCA (copyright infringement) complaint. The complaint was made by Jeffrey Joy, the owner of a private investigation business called Vested Protection Security. Mr Joy is also the husband of Zapem aka Michele aka Joanne Joy.

OpUniteBlue published an article on Mr. Joy and Vested Protection Systems, alleging unethical and possibly illegal activities. 
We had every right to publish information of public concern 
as established in Obsidian v Cox regarding Free Speech. 

Though our hosting contract with GoDaddy was due to expire November 27th, we felt the DMCA complaint was filed in retaliation so we chose challenge Mr. Joy’s copyright claims.
We won.
Though OpUniteBlue.com is back online we’re not done with Vested Protection Services. There are boundaries to what a private investigation business is allowed to do and Vested Protection has been stepping outside those boundaries for years.
Here’s the DMCA complaint Mr. Joy sent.

Subject: Re: DMCA TakeDown Notice
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:16:09 -0400
To:copyrightclaims@godaddy.com
<vestedprotection@gmail.com>
I am the copyright owner of the content being infringed at:
1. Pictures of our office that were removed from our business website located atwww.vestedprotection.com.
2. Copies of the emails illegally hacked from a private email account and published on this website in violation of federal and state law.
This letter is official notification under the provisions of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (�DMCA�) to effect removal of the above-reported infringement. I request that you immediately remove the specified posting and prevent the infringer, who is identified by its web address, from posting the infringing photograph to your servers in the future. Please be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to �expeditiously remove or disable access to� the infringing photograph upon receiving this notice. Noncompliance may result in a loss of immunity for liability under the DMCA.
I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of here is not authorized by me, the copyright holder, or the law.
The information provided here is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear under penalty of perjury that I am the copyright holder.
Please send me at the address noted below a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jeffrey J. Joy
Vested Protection Systems, LLC
206 Westfield Avenue
Clark, New Jersey 07066

Mr Joy claimed that pictures of his office were taken from his business site. There is only one pictue and it’s actually a screen capture taken from Google maps. His claim is not true.
Mr Joy also claims Zapem’s emails were illegally hacked. Once again, this isn’t true. It’s been reported on several blogs that the emails were released by a Breitbart staff member. There are audio recordings of the email’s author, Michele, complaining about the emails being released but she doesn’t mention anything about hacking."

Source and Full Article

http://www.opuniteblue.com/2014/11/vindication-opuniteblue-com-is-back-online/

A "STUNNINGLY ROBUST" Protection of Free Speech.

"I take issue with Gajda’s interpretation of much of the case law cited in The First Amendment Bubble. She reports, for example that a federal court “decided in 2011 that a blogger’s posts involving a bankruptcy trustee . . . were not of public concern because there was no evidence that the public had paid any attention to the private company’s collapse.” Obsidian Finance v. Cox is a complex case, but she fails to note that the Ninth Circuit eventually found that the blog posts did address “a matter of public concern.”

To my eyes, the ruling is a 
stunningly robust protection of speech. 



Elsewhere, she argues that “some judges” are suggesting that “accidents are not newsworthy”; her evidence is DeSirey v. Unique Vacations—a case about a dune buggy accident in which American press freedoms were not remotely involved. The defendants wanted a trial in St. Lucia, where the accident occurred. They argued that tourism was of “public interest” to the island resort’s press. The judge held that “this relatively straightforward tort suit does not automatically become of broad public interest in St. Lucia merely because it involves the tourism industry.”

Read the Whole Story At:
http://www.cjr.org/review/how_the_first_amendment_applie.php?page=all&print=true#sthash.MEVDRQqf.dpuf

Plus Folks Please note that a Bankruptcy Court Proceeding is a Public Issue, as are 1031 Exchange Companies, DIG DEEP.

Randazza Legal Groupies DEFINED; posted here by Bat Shit Crazy Crystal Cox SWORN Enemy of Marc Randazza and ALL of his Lawless EVIL Conspirators. Oh and the REAL First Amendment HERO.

Randazza Legal Groupies :

I, Crystal L. Cox, ALLEGE this is a group of lawyers, bloggers, registrars, pattern and history (RICO) conspiring against targets in legal cases in a criminal defamation campaign to affect court cases for personal financial gain and to affect legal precedence. ( I allege Racketeering )
intellectual property experts, First Amendment experts, INTA members, porn attorneys, law firms, Ninth Circuit lawyers and law reporters, stalkers, First Amendment attorneys, and more in

These targets are individuals, companies, porn insiders, whistleblowers, ex-clients, people who are higher in the search engines, people or companies who have intellectual property they want and whomever they decide they are going to TARGET for what ever their latest agenda is.


This group of attorneys use their legal expertise, law degrees, power as officers of the court, big media and radio connections, corrupt judges and clout to abuse the legal process and the courts, and I allege to commit fraud on the courts in order to seek revenge, affect settlement offers, get clients, get legal precedence for future case, and further their careers as well as get some sort of sick pleasure abusing their victims constitutional rights while at the same time promoting themselves and their LEADER attorney Marc Randazza as Pro Free Speech for ALL and First Amendment Rights for ALL, while they VIOLATED the First Amendment Rights of their TARGETS again and again.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Crystal Cox Blogger; the VERY first Federal Court of Appeals Case that SPECIFICALLY Protects the RIGHTS of Bloggers.

"Blogger protected by 1st Amendment, appeals court says"

"federal appeals court unanimously overturned a defamation award against a blogger ..., ruling that 1st Amendment protections for traditional news media extend to individuals posting on the Web.
The protections of the 1st Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities,”

Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote for a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel said its holding was the first of its kind within the 9th Circuit but that other circuit courts already have extended protections for journalists to individual speakers."


“This case is the first one from a federal court of appeals that specifically protects the rights of bloggers,” said UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox without charge on appeal. He said the ruling would also protect other individuals, including those who leaflet and who speak out on behalf of politicians or activist groups."

Ninth Circuit Crystal Cox Case; ALL Citizen Journalists, All Bloggers NOW Have EQUAL Free Speech, First Amendment Rights as the Biggest News Media Corporations.

Citizen Journalists Have Same Rights as News Media
 

"This case is important to the future of citizen journalism because of the crusade against freedom of speech being perpetrated by members of Congress."

"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled ... that bloggers have the same 1st Amendment rights as established journalists when involved in a defamation of character suit; as long as the issue is of public concern.

The outcome of this case establishes the fact that protections afforded the news media are not exclusive to their realm, but are also extended to citizen journalists and bloggers.

The decision was entered because of a defamation lawsuit brought in Oregon concerning a blogger ...."

"US District Court Judge Marco Hernandez originally denied Cox the right of journalistic protection."

Hurwitz continued: “Because Cox’s blog post addressed a matter of public concern, even assuming that Gertz is limited to such speech, the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find Cox liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently. We hold that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages.”

Most importantly, the judges found that “under the 1st Amendment, it doesn’t matter whether the person accused of defamation is a professional journalist, an amateur whistle-blower or a crank with a Web page.”

This case highlights the findings in 1974 wherein the US Supreme Court wrote that freedom of the press applies to everyone – not only journalists.

Eugene Volokh, professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles, commented on the Cox case:

 “It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists. 

There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. 

This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. 

I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers.”

This case is important to the future of citizen journalism because of the crusade against freedom of speech being perpetrated by members of Congress.

Source
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=28602


Blogger Crystal Cox has NEVER sought a Pay Off for Reporting on Corruption on 1500 blogs for over a decade. NOT One Time, EVER. 

Blogger Crystal Cox has been defamed, harassed and painted in false light by Big Media, Legal Bloggers, Attorney Marc Randazza's alleged Gang Stalking attorneys and bloggers, as well as rogue attorneys and overreaching Judges. 

Crystal Cox has NEVER been under Investigation for Extortion, nor has Blogger Crystal Cox ever been convicted of extortion at anytime. 

Crystal Cox Blogger sets precedence for ALL Bloggers; NOW, as a Matter of LAW. All Bloggers have Equal Rights as All Traditional Journalists and Reporters in the main stream Institutional Press.

"Bloggers have same First Amendment rights as the Press" Due to the January 2014 Landmark Court Ruling of Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal L. Cox; Crystal Cox Case; Crystal Cox Blogger

"In a major free-speech ruling, the Ninth Circuit decreed that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as the institutional, commercial press. The ruling demolishes the argument that in the eyes of the law, bloggers are not journalists."

"The Ninth circuit added that the blogger could not be held liable for "presumed damages" without a showing of "actual malice" -- that she knew the post was false or acted with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.

"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. 

As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.”

 Citizens United , 558 U .S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue—not the identity of the speaker—provide the First Amendment touchstones," the Ninth Circuit said."

Source
http://blog.larrybodine.com/2014/01/articles/blogging/bloggers-have-same-first-amendment-rights-as-the-press/index.html


Blogs are the NEWS

Crystal Cox Blogger; Crystal Cox Free Speech, First Amendment Case. Major First Amendment / Free Speech Ruling Levels the Playing Field

Major First Amendment / Free Speech Ruling Levels the Playing Field as to who is the "NEWS" and who is protected in our courts to report the "NEWS.


"On January 17, 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Crystal L. Cox from Eureka Montana who was sued by for defamation by .. an attorney and ... his company. Cox had written posts exposing fraud, corruption, money-laundering and so forth."

"This ruling should be a clear reminder to misguided attorneys, corporations, developers or those with affluence to cease bullying or intimidating those who report the issues of the day.

Many concerned citizens have no choice but to create their own blogs and websites to level the playing field in this blossoming social media warfare.

The government has its plentiful public relations specialists, paid for by taxpayers. Corporations and special interests have their hired PR consultants. There are hired mercenaries who feel no qualms about spinning the facts. News media can be bought or controlled by big money or shut down.

It's not uncommon for the public to read articles or watch the TV news only to lament the irregularities or inadequate reporting. Oftentimes, critical issues are shunned or ignored by corporate media because of entwined relationships.

Bloggers with information or have intimate experiences and understanding of issues are critically needed now, more than ever."

"The Reports Committee for the Freedom of the Press 
also provided its statements in Barnard's article:
"Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.
It's not a special right to the news media," he said. "So it's a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others."
Barnard further reported that:
Though Cox acted as her own attorney, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who had written an article on the issue, learned of her case and offered to represent her in an appeal. Volokh said such cases usually end up settled without trial, and it was rare for one to reach the federal appeals court level.
"It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists," he said. "There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers."
source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/choon-james/confirmed-bloggers-have-f_b_4657313.html

Bloggers, Journalists, New Media and the Crystal Cox Case

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

"Troll Down: The Fight Against Big Porn and their Legal Trolls" ; Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com and Brown of White & Newhouse LLP

For Some Reason Brown of White & Newhouse LLP is very interested in this today. Someone even emailed them a link to my blog that talked about it 2 years ago. So what's up Brown of White & Newhouse LLP and Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com ? What don't you like about this online article?

"Kenneth White: Defender of Logs, Grade A Hypocrite

Ken White is another mafia-funded Big Porn goon who is the co-counsel to Marc Randazza (If Randazza is Tony Soprano, think of Ken as Salvatore Bonpensiero).

He notably engages in hypocritical behaviors which consist of, but are not limited to:

1. Calling out Crystal Cox for attacking Marc Randazza as a parent – and then doing the same thing to Chance Trahan.

2. An ‘offensive’ website that publishes images of real women naked is scum, but a bunch of ‘offensive’ logs, coal and dirt constitutes ‘art’.

3.  Marc Randazza’s defense of Manwin and Porn Valley in numerous civil cases is “first amendment protection”, but posting amateur pictures of real adults (who were not paid any money) is obviously terrible!

4.  Accusing us of profiting from people’s pain and suffering (which really is completely and entirely untrue to begin with, but I’ll roll with your premise as a hypothetical), when you work as a lawyer. Without pain and suffering, you have no clients. It’s perfectly okay for you to get paid to heal them, but when we do it, it’s terrible and wrong? Come off it. Those people transmit their pictures via the public internet.

5. Out of all the Latin phrases you could’ve picked, yours is the most homosexual in nature (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course) – the ram touches the wall? From the era of the Greeks and Romans? I’m awaiting for you and Randazza to announce that you will be coming out of the closet any second, Ken.  Be it as you have chosen “murum aries attigit” – I will choose the only valid response. Sic semper tyrannis.

6.  I don’t live my life with regrets. Apparently, you do. Your 6th major mistake is the idea that I have to explain anything about MY LIFE to anyone. How do you justify your background in representing the mafia, porn valley, and drug money? Perhaps you should show your children some of the films made by the people that you and Mr. Randazza have represented (which are far more hardcore than anything on our website), hand them an 8-ball and tell them to take a hit, or show them pictures of people who were killed by the mob or street gangs.

7. There is no moral high ground in this battle, and yet you still cling to your false moralism. Obviously, you’ve never done anything that would morally offend anyone, in your entire life. Not only are you a lawyer, you’re a saint, which explains all of the Catholic imagery on your website. And yet, I don’t see a single endorsement from any bishops, priests, dioceses, archdioceses, cardinals, patriarchs, etc. I fully believe that the papacy should also sue you, but unlike you, they’re actually doing the work of God, and thus are too busy to work for the Porn Valley mafia.

8. Either you still have that outdated belief of people as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ OR, more than likely, you’re playing on the naivete of the commoners again. How can you use a phrase from Antony as your motto – and then lecture me about good and evil? You’re a jaded cynic, just like me, and you’re fueled by money. You’d do anything or say anything to win. There’s no morality here. This is a dogfight.


9. We will teach our children not to take naked pictures of themselves, of course. Not to trust scumbag lawyers, not to live in a dump like California or Nevada.  Not to do drugs, and not to waste their lives. However, we’re also going to teach them everything we know about the world – your sons and daughters will contend with ours, for all eternity. Right? Wrong? Admirable? To who? At the end of the day, all of the morals in the world don’t fill stomachs, they don’t build homes, they don’t save lives. If you want to make an omelette, you must crack a few eggs. You know this as well as I do – it fits your modus operandi as much as it does mine. Jesus wandered in the desert and lived in complete poverty – I’m not much for that, sorry. Perhaps I’d believe you if you donated all of your earnings to a good cause, like, say, Hurricane Sandy, and lived out the rest of your life in a monastery. Some days, I think about it myself.

10.  You’ve continually stated the idea that our website is based on cruelty and abuse or some sort of revenge. Hunter Moore’s was. Eric Chanson’s is. Our website is not. It’s solely about the profit. We post people’s naked pictures for advertising revenue.

Not only is it not fun (looking at a bunch of naked people that I really have no attraction to – including many images of men), it’s time-consuming (administrating a server, as well as hours of behind-the-scenes work to make sure the ship stays afloat). I tried for years, and years, and years – to build any kind of successful business – and you are right, I was not good at it. I failed as a musician, as a karaoke builder/host, I failed as a writer, I failed as a salesman, I failed at a great many things. And now that I’ve achieved some margin of success, the competition wants to take that success away from me.

Finally, after 28 years of life, I have a real business that makes me money, I might actually be able to afford to have my teeth fixed, to deal with my countless health issues (including migraines, panic attacks and somatic disorder), I might actually be able to afford food and shelter of my own instead of being dependent. And you, who have lived high on the lamb for decades, don’t like the idea that I might actually get out from below the poverty line, because I’m taking that money from your employers in Porn Valley.

You know what Randazza offered me? $2,500. For the first successful business that I’ve ever built in my naturally born life. I told him, if the number was right, I’d gladly shut down the website and never look back – but you know, as a high-priced porn valley lawyer, that $2,500 is nothing. You can’t feed a family with that money.

Here’s an idea. If you’ve got 40 people on your side, and you all offer me $2,500 each, I’ll shut all of it down. ($2,500 x 40 = $100,000). I would then take the money, purchase a business that has nothing to do with porn (like a restaurant or a bar) and live out the rest of my days working at that gig. In fact, that’s actually the plan with our website now – once I make enough money, I can purchase the businesses I really want to own. It’s SOLELY about money, not revenge or cruelty or anything else.

11. The idea that our site picks on women. For one, that’s entirely false. You managed to pick a few abusive comments, but the majority of the comments on our website are actually compliments from appreciative viewers. In fact, the only reason that most people want to be removed from the website is that their employers are deciding to terminate them from their jobs in a lot of cases.

THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU SHOULD BE GOING AFTER. A boss who fires someone because of naked pictures on the internet. A general public that frowns upon nudity and open expression of sexuality.

For two, there’s a lot of men pictured on our website as well. That should tell you that our website is equal opportunity. So, rather than suggesting we’re bullying women, why don’t you tell the people the truth about the men that are posted on our site (or do you not care about them because they don’t fall into your ‘misogyny’ angle)? Furthermore, your associates have found naked pictures of me.

You can’t portray me as someone who would ‘not like it if someone did this to them’ because I’ve had it done to me.  It hurt – for about 3 days. Then they stopped caring and moved on. Which leads me to…

12. Eventually you and Randazza will stop caring and move on as well. There’s nothing you can do. We’re not doing anything illegal. Your employers paid you for a witch hunt.

Tell Marc Randazza to reveal who is really paying him for this – it’s probably his good buddies at Manwin. Same with you, Ken – reveal your clients instead of standing up the ‘victims’ for permanent ridicule from a frivolous lawsuit.   You’re using them on behalf of Big Porn/Porn Valley.

13. I’m not a racist, sexist, misogynist, or anything else. That would imply I specifically target people of a certain background. I’m a misanthrope, who doesn’t like people in general. I have good reason to hate people for no reason at all. I only make exceptions to the general rule (my family and a few close friends, like Chance). Everyone else? They never helped me.

Why should I feel bad about what they’ve done to themselves? I’ve turned it into a successful business. Kudos to me. You, on the other hand, are Catholic. Do the words ‘Holy Roman Empire’ mean anything to you? What about ‘Spanish Inquisition’? ‘The Crusades’?  Exactly, it’s okay when you and your people do things like that, but God forbid that I make money off of naked pictures!

14.  Posting old pictures of me and stuff I did years ago. You don’t post pictures of yourself when you were 19, Ken. All of that stuff is old. When you examine it in depth, you’re forced to realize that it’s not 2002, it’s not 2003, it’s not 2004 or 2005. It’s 2012. Rather than suggesting that I was just a born villain – why not take a look at what I gave up to get what I have? I’ve never had a decent job or a decent girlfriend in my entire life.

Now, I have a decent business – which obviously has to be illegal in your opinion, even though people have been doing what I do for years, and I’m not the first, and I won’t be the last, which generally means that the precedent is on my side, and that all of this is legal and legit – and you wonder why I’m upset? Nonsense.

You’re getting paid by Porn Valley to target me. This isn’t about your moral convictions or some higher ground, this is a dogfight, it’s a battle between sharks, there’s no good or evil here, it’s just the scumbags on our team versus the scumbags on yours. I’m not holier-than-thou about it, and you shouldn’t be either.

You send a shark to face another shark, a wolf for a wolf, a tiger for a tiger. You have the same mindset as the majority of the USA (and the world, for that matter) – you want to get something done, but you don’t want to get your hands dirty. How lazy and naive. And yet you accuse me of entitlement, I’ll assure you there’s none of that here. Nobody owes me anything. What I do is hard. It hurts on the inside, and on the outside. Massive amounts of stress and lost sleep. Unending pain and further loss of hope for humanity than I ever thought was possible.

These people do it to themselves – they are not sweet, innocent people looking for relationships, they’re looking for casual sex. A lot of them are already married. What does the Catholic church say about being married, and then looking for threesomes or casual sex on Craigslist? Sending naked pictures to total strangers, often in the first email, or outright posting them on the ad itself? I assure you that every one pictured on our website posted all of that information publicly, and thus consented from the very start. If you did not want people to see your naked pictures, you would not take them, or at the very least you would not send them.

Here’s to a glorious battle between two teams of great sharks – Is Anybody Down, Craig Brittain, Chance Trahan, Crystal Cox, Monica Foster, our legal team, all independent small business owners, all true defenders of free speech and expression, all proud citizens of the USA, anyone who isn’t voting for Obama, our friends and supporters, everyone who has submitted content to our website, everyone who loves our website, vs. Porn Valley, organized crime, Randazza Legal, Ken White, Adam Steinbaugh or whoever else you can dig up, the fall guys/girls that have to have their names listed on whatever frivolous suit you file, the liberal left, the religious extremists, and all of the people who want us to starve so we can’t feed, clothe or shelter ourselves or our families.

We are proud of what we do. If we didn’t, someone else would – we’re the very best at it. Hunter Moore won’t build a new website, and no one has any interest in Eric Chanson.

We will not falter nor surrender. Nemo me impune lacessit."

Source
https://web.archive.org/web/20121117120526/http://www.trolldown.com/2012/11/03/kenneth-white-defender-of-logs-grade-a-hypocrite/

Monday, November 17, 2014

Alexandra Mayers, Monica Foster on Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group; Marc Randazza SUED Monica Foster to SEEK Revenge. Jennifer Randazza has NO Trademark. Monica Foster has First Amendment Rights over her ART. Yet the EVIL Lawless Randazza's SUED Monica Foster for Trademark Infringement and Defamation Issues. Violent Videos Games, Art, and Parody have First Amendment Rights; well for everyone UNLESS they are making fun of, making ART or Parody of the RANDAZZA's that is.

It is CLEAR that Monica Foster's First Amendment Rights TRUMP any claim that Jennifer Randazza, PROXY, for Asshole Husband Marc Randazza, may have against media genius, professional artist, investigative blogger, porn insider and parody creator Monica Foster.

For more on Court Cases on this Topic, Check out the Link Below
http://freespeechsuppression.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-first-amendment-trumps-trademark.html

I wish that an attorney would represent Monica Foster and counter Sue the Randazza Assholes for BILLIONS, as clearly they knowingly, willfully and wanton SUED this woman outside of the LAW that they know well and are experts in. And they knew they were in the wrong. Another words they did this with "willful and wanton" deliberate intention and they are Financially Liable for Defaming, Harassing, and violating the rights of Monica Foster.

The Randazza's AGAIN abuse court power and process to create victims, to TARGET those who stand up to their tyranny and abuses of the legal process. This is CLEARLY unconstitutional. And guess what, they don't care. You see, you don't want to make and Enemy of a RANDAZZA, or do you? Well I sure did and do, after all I am Crystal Cox SWORN Enemy of Fucktard Marc Randazza, after all.

Hypocritical Asshole Marc Randazza and Lying Slut Jennifer Randazza did this to defame her, traffic her, violate her, stalk her, suppress her speech, violate her human and civil rights and they did so knowing full well that her ART, her PARODY is protected under law and the U.S. Constitution. 

Who can really STOP the Evil Reign of Randazza? 
Well perhaps only God. 
We shall see.

Here are some links on the clear FACT that Monica Foster's art creations and parody are protected under the First Amendment as Mr. Rabid Riddler Randazza and his hypocritical Evil law firm Randazza Legal Group KNOW well, as they are EXPERTS in this area of Law, ALLEGEDLY.

http://freespeechsuppression.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-first-amendment-trumps-trademark.html

"Easter 2014 - Debt Bondage, Sex Trafficking, Randazza Legal Group & the Porn Industry"

  



STOP the EVIL Tyranny of Marc Randazza and his Groupies. 

Expose Marc Randazza and his alleged Civil Conspirators I call "the Randazza Legal Groupies" or the Clusterfuck federation of court manipulating fucktards.



STOP Breaking the Law Randazza


Do the Right Thing !!!

TELL THE TRUTH

Blogger Crystal Cox ALLEGES that Adam Steinbaugh is part of a Gang of Attorneys and Media that aid and abet Randazza Legal Group and Marc Randazza in Civil Conspiracy to influence and win court cases.


Adam Steinbaugh blathers this about me, Crystal Cox.

"Adam Steinbaugh <adam.steinbaugh@gmail.com> Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:30 PM
To: Roca Labs Media <Media@rocalabs.com>

Thanks for the response.

Are you seriously contending that your removal of the video and quick editing of the "fellow doctor" letter just hours after I raised questions about them is pure coincidence? If not, what was the plan?

Second, you're seriously citing Crystal Cox?

Her claims have been rejected by every court that has heard them, save for the Ninth Circuit appeal (which had nothing substantive to do with Randazza.) It's ironic that you're citing a "consumer gripe site" with confidence that the claims there are accurate -- or, for that matter,coherent.

Third, the court proceeding has literally nothing to do with whether Roca Labs' products are effective or not. It's a contractual dispute as to whether a website can allow your customers can post any negative review, whether it's completely true or thoroughly inaccurate. Leaving aside the question I asked about the litigation, you still have not answered any of the remaining questions I've posed.
Lastly, I fail to see why you've included a screenshot of your Twitter notifications page. Was there a point to this?
Best,
ABS"

Source
http://adamsteinbaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/roca_labs_emails.pdf



I guess I am not coherent to Adam Steinbaugh, poor thing. His ears must be full of sand and he can't make out what I am saying nor the facts of his yammering stupor.

Dear Asshole Adam Steinbaugh,

Yes my CLAIMS have been rejected by the courts, however they are full out 100% True non-the-less.  My allegations are factual to the best of my ability. I am the GOOD GUY. I am a voice for victims of corruption, abuse on the courts, fraud on the courts, rape, assault, domestic violence, estate fraud, forgery, corrupt judges, corrupt attorney and the victims of those who use legal motions and the court process to bully, harass, defame, torture, drive to suicide, get money and other creepy, sick, civil and human rights violations.

I don't care if 10 million people a day claim I am something I am NOT, that does NOT change the facts. I know who I am and so does God. 

I may not use the language you approve of or have proper legal jargon, but I have told the truth to the best of my ability and for no personal gain, regardless of what the circle jerk groupies tell you, regardless of the lies NPR, Forbes and the New York Times have said because they believe these rogue attorneys over me or the TRUTH, regardless of the unadjudicated evidence that judges use in believing attorneys over their targets, I am still HERE, I am still obeying the law, I am still on the right side of the LAW and the Moral Compass where I have ALWAYS been regardless of the horrific, criminal defamatory, life ruining over the top constitutional, civil and human rights violations in which Marc Randazza and his gang of PURE EVIL gang stalking, lying, harassing, defaming THUGS have and continue to do to me.



Funny in the defamatory email above Adam Steinbaugh calls my sites 
about Marc Randazza a "consumer gripe site". WOW. 

WRONG Adam Steinbaugh according to your Laughable Leader Marc Randazza they are a violation of Trademark and so he TOOK THEM in an unconstitutional TRO in which had no prior First Amendment Adjudication and the only evidence Judge Gloria Navarro had and used as adjudicated fact was blogs such as Jordan Rushie's and other Randazza Legal Groupie blogs, this was fact enough to shut down lots of blogs, steal names such as RandazzaLegalGroupSucks.com, MarcRandazzaSucks.com, MarcRandazzaisAlyingAsshole.com and tons more.

Marc Randazza claimed they were a Trademark Violation of his "Good Name" (LOL) and NOT Gripe sites. Two years later he still has the stolen domain names and my search engine ranking was lost long long long ago. And not only that but Godaddy and Rogue Judge, Judge Gloria Navarro, allowed him to change the servers on the domain names and point them to a blog post on his own personal COMMERCIAL legal blog lying about me, painting me in false light, attacking me and defaming me. Oh and don't forget Ya'll, he was my attorney for a bit in my massively high profile First Amendment Case until I FIRED his dumb, over reaching, bullying, cruel lawless, woman hating, egotistical ASS.

There was NO mistaking my blogs as Gripe Sites. 

Yet Mr. Dangerous Dipshit anti-Free Speech tyrant Marc Randazza took them anyway. And then used his bogus SLAPP suit against me to destroy my life, friendships, business relationships and keep me under constant harassment, online attack and surveillance.

He also used his case against me to bully my church, to get private information from friends, clients and third party vendors such as Godaddy and Verizon. Marc Randazza sues ya and then he has the POWER of the courts as an officer of the court to dig into your emails, your bank records, church records, phone records, harass your friends and ex's and well do anything he damn well pleases with no consequence and with total disrespect for the law and the constitutional, civil and human rights of his TARGET whoever that may be.

Marc Randazza is a lying hypocrite. Anyone that actually reads all of the facts of the Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein case, can see that Marc Randazza is a dangerous hypocrite who uses the court system in a very above the law abusive manner in order to win cases and seek REVENGE.

Summary Judgment Denial showing that Dangerous Delusional Dipshit Marc Randazza had no case.
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

here is the Whole Docket
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html


These Randazza Legal Groupies aKa Gang of Attorneys, Media, Legal Bloggers and lawyers that aid and abet Marc Randazza in pattern and history, case after case, target after target to affect the outcome of cases, forces settlements, win case or do whatever their "AGENDA" is against that particular target. Well they seem to think if they keep lying, making fun, degrading and painting their target in false light that eventually the lie will become the TRUTH. And well often times it works for them, and NOT only in the public court of opinion, but they use these distorted, gang stalking, circle jerk blogs as actual evidence and most judges take it as fact because they are attorneys and their target is not.

No matter how many porn industry attorney groupies cheer for Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group, the Truth will remain the Truth. I tell the TRUTH, I obey the law and I STAND up for Victims of Corruption and Victims of Attorneys who abuse the courts, abuse the power and privilege they have as attorneys and officers of the court and the LIE will not stand in place of the TRUTH on my Watch.

So Adam Steinbaugh I cordially invite you to Go Fuck Yourself. You don't have a clue who I am or what my world changing, AMAZING God Given, landmark, VICTIM liberating court precedence has done to free the victims of guys like your Circle Jerk Hero Marc Randazza.

And, to my Readers;

YOU ARE THE MEDIA

Tell your Story Nice and Loud on a THOUSAND Blogs.
Expose Rogue Attorneys and Overreaching Judges