Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group has been sued by Blogger Crystal Cox for Malpractice and Defamation. Marc J. Randazza claims he did not represent Crystal Cox.

Blogger Crystal Cox Sued attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group for Malpractice and Defamation. Marc Randazza claims under oath to the courts, and as an officer of the court being an attorney, that he did NOT represent Crystal Cox.

In an admitted conversation with Eugene Volokh, Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group agreed to "bow out", If I wanted Eugene Volokh UCLA Law Professor to represent me in the case. 

So in this private conversation between them and without my, the clients, knowledge or consent, the questions begs "Why would he have to "bow out" if he did not believe he was my attorney or was not acting as my attorney" ?

Why would one attorney tell another attorney they will bow out of a case if they have no representation of the person they are claiming they will "bow out" in regard to? Or connection to the case?

An attorney would not have to "bow out" and STOP his negotiations if he did not think he was representing that person, that "client".

Attorney Marc Randazza DID represent Crystal Cox, me, and he did act unethically, and I allege illegally and he violated my constitutional rights and rights as a client.

Below you See Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group stating that he told Eugene Volokh he would "bow out". 

You also CLEARLY see that Randazza was talking of a "settlement" being in my best interest and of allowing Volokh to co-counsel. 

Yet Randazza CLAIMS he did not Represent Me, Crystal Cox

INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

Did you have phone conversations with Eugene Volokh and state that you represented Cox and discuss with him your strategy, or a deal you were trying to make with the opposition, Plaintiff’s attorney David Aman?

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

"Counterdefendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not limited in time and scope, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Counterdefendant further objects because this interrogatory is in excess of the 25 allowable
interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result,
Counterdefendant is not required to respond to the same. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Counterdefendant responds as follows:

Counterdefendant spoke with Eugene Volokh in December 2011. 

Randazza informed Volkokh that if he was going to represent Cox, that Randazza would gladly "bow out", and defer to Volokh to handle the case.

Volokh, however, said that he would prefer that Randazza co-counsel the case with him due to Volokh’s stated lack of litigation experience. Counterdefendant and Volokh discussed possible strategies that he and Volokh thought might be good ideas during that call.

Counterdefendant and Volokh both discussed the fact that Cox’s interests would be better served through settlement."

Source ( Page 18 )
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiM0hkaW9IYVV2VGc/view?usp=sharing

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group not only agrees to "bow out" but admits to be in a negotiation with Eugene Volokh to Co-Counsel. 

What gave Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group that special power and privilege, that client / attorney privilege, if he did not believe he was already representing me, Crystal Cox? 

How could he legally or ethically offer to co-counsel with Volokh on my behalf, if he did not represent me and without my, the CLIENTS, specific permission?

Also, why would Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group discuss co-counsel with Eugene Volokh if he had not already told Eugene Volokh that he represented me, Crystal Cox?

Why in the world would Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group discuss a "settlement" with Eugene Volokh as admitted above, if he did not believe he was representing me, Crystal Cox or acting as my attorney? 

Marc Randazza clearly admits to discussing that a settlement is best for me, and seemingly who cares what I, the client thinks. He admits to being my counsel and saying he will bow out. He offers to allow Volokh to co-counsel. And yet tells the courts he did not represent me, Crystal Cox? Really? WOW.

You clearly see above, Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group admitting to negotiating on behalf of Cox, in a way to see if a "deal" could be made with the Plaintiff in my case. 

Yet Marc Randazza did not get my permission to do so nor tell me the deal. He took my strategy, led me to believe I could trust him then went to the other side in my case and tried to make a deal that I DID NOT WANT. 

If he was not engaged in all of the above as my attorney than under what power, privilege and authority was he doing this?

More eMails, Discovery, Declarations, 

Motions and information on the 

"Did Marc Randazza Represent Crystal Cox" Saga 

Coming SOON.

More on the Hypocrisy of Attorney Marc Randazza
http://randazzalegalgroupies.blogspot.com/2014/12/first-amendment-attorney-marc-randazza.html

Check out the Full Docket Below of Randazza v. Cox and the Counterclaim of Defamation and Malpractice against  Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group 
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

Marc Randazza AGAIN Admits to have BEEN Crystal Cox's attorney yet keeps whining that he was NOT my Attorney. Marc Randazza agrees to "bow out" as Crystal Cox's attorney then claims he was NEVER her attorney.

Attorney Marc Randazza continues to FLAT OUT LIE in Court Motions and Claim he was not Crystal Cox's attorney yet there is so much that points out that this is NOT TRUE.

"REQUEST NO. 3:

Anyway phone records, emails, faxes, mail, or records of documentation of any kind between
you and anyone, including and not limited to Judge Marco Hernandez, Michael Spreadbury, ...., Martin Cain, Lara Pearson, Alexandria Mayers, Sean Boushie, Peter L. Michaelson, Eric Turkewitz, Leo Mulville, Jordan Rushie, Kenneth P. White, Ari Bass aKa Michael Whiteacre, Sean Tompkins, Eugene Volokh, Liberty Media Company and all associates, any Porn company what so ever, Stephen Lamont, Pamela Simon, Ted Bernstein, Alan Rose or any other party, in which you made statement to about Crystal Cox in any way and especially whereby you accused Cox of criminal activity.


"RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3:

Counterdefendant objects to Request No. 3 on the grounds that the request is unintelligible,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, lacks specificity, and requests documents
which are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.

Counterdefendant further objects as the request seeks documents which are protected by
the attorney/client privilege and/or work product privilege. Furthermore, some of the documents
requested are, or should be, in Cox’s possession – for example, communications with Eugene
Volokh, her attorney. Such discovery requests should be directed at him. "

Source of Marc Randazza Response
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiUHBIcDltaWRKQ28/edit

Odd that Marc Randazza is claiming attorney client protection when he claims he was not my attorney. He STOLE my work product but seems to think his "work product" has value and worth but mine can just be STOLEN ???



INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

Did you have phone conversations with Eugene Volokh and state that you represented Cox and
discuss with him your strategy, or a deal you were trying to make with the opposition, Plaintiff’s
attorney David Aman?

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

"Counterdefendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overly broad, not limited in time and scope, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Counterdefendant further objects because this interrogatory is in excess of the 25 allowable
interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result,
Counterdefendant is not required to respond to the same. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, Counterdefendant responds as follows:

Counterdefendant spoke with Eugene Volokh in December 2011. 

Randazza informed Volkokh that if he was going to represent Cox, that Randazza would gladly bow out, and defer to Volokh to handle the case.

Volokh, however, said that he would prefer that Randazza co-counsel the case with him due to Volokh’s stated lack of litigation experience. Counterdefendant and Volokh discussed possible strategies that he and Volokh thought might be good ideas during that call.

Counterdefendant and Volokh both discussed the fact that Cox’s interests would be better served
through settlement."

Source ( Page 18 )
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiM0hkaW9IYVV2VGc/view?usp=sharing


Why in the world would you would you "bow out" Mr Randazza if you were NEVER My attorney in the first place? What gives you the right to choose for me, make decision for me and to bow out as my attorney if you are saying that you were not my attorney ??? Hmmm

How in the world does attorney Marc Randazza have the legal right to bow out and to "defer" me, the client to another attorney and then defer to that attorney on the case?

WOW, Marc Randazza world's biggest Hypocrite Attorney.

First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group SAYS that Preliminary Injunctions are unconstitutional, they are unlawful prior restraint, they are "patently unconstitutional", they are clearly an "unconstitutional remedy". Especially if there was no prior First Amendment Adjudication.

Let's Look at the RULING and Marc Randazza's 

Big Preliminary Injunction VICTORY

A Bit from Marc Randazza's Victory APPEALING an alleged unconstitutional preliminary injunction against his client. Even though Marc Randazza himself used an unconstitutional preliminary injunction against me, Crystal Cox and stole my search engine ranking, my intellectual property, my blogs and then proceeded to violate my privacy rights, constitutional rights, civil rights and to harass and defame me for years.

""Irina Chevaldina appeals an order granting a preliminary injunction to “enjoin tortious interference, stalking, trespass and defamatory blogs” entered in favor of Raanan Katz and the other named appellees, plaintiffs in the circuit court. We vacate the order and injunction. "

Source
http://3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf


" In this appeal, we review a temporary injunction in the circuit court action
which determined that “the Defendants have blogged extensively about the
Plaintiff and many of these blogs are arguably defamatory. Although ultimately a
defamation trial will be held, this Court ORDERS the Defendants not to enter
defamatory blogs in the future.”

The court determined that:

Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of ultimately prevailing on the
merits of their claims, and there is a substantial threat of irreparable
injury to the Plaintiffs if injunctive relief is not granted, that the
threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighs whatever damage the
injunction would cause the Defendants, and that the injunction would
not be adverse to the public interest."

Source
3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf

In Randazza v. Cox there was no "substantial likelihood of ultimately prevailing on the
merits of their claims" and there certainly was no First Amendment Adjudication BEFORE Plaintiff Marc Randazza seized Blogger Crystal Cox's intellectual property.

See the Link Below that shot down all of Plaintiff Randazza's unsupported causes of action
in a Denial of a Summary Judgement in Randazza v. Cox
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

The Ruling Goes on to Say;

"A temporary injunction “should be granted only sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proved facts entitling it to relief.” Liberty Fin. Mortg. Corp. v. Clampitt, 667 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)."
3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf

Yet attorney, Plaintiff Marc Randazza proved NO FACTS in Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein, yet he filed gag orders, injunctions, stole blogs, shut down sites, and even redirected my blogs to a post on his blog defaming and lying about me. Why do the courts protect Marc Randazza when he is clearly violating law and the constitutional rights of his victims?

"In order to establish the right to a temporary injunction the moving party must show: the likelihood of irreparable harm; the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; the substantial likelihood of success on the merits;

the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs the possible harm to the respondent; and the granting of the temporary injunction will not disserve the public interest. E.g., City of Miami Beach v. Kuoni Destination Mgmt., Inc., 81 So. 3d 530, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). 

We review the temporary injunction for an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., 2 So. 3d 1100, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA

A. Injunction Against Tortious Interference and Defamatory Blogs Injunctive relief is not available to prohibit the making of defamatory or libelous statements. See, e.g., Vrasic v. Leibel, 106 So. 3d 485, 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

A temporary injunction directed to speech is a classic example of prior restraint on speech triggering First Amendment concerns. Id.

There is, however, a limited exception to the general rule where the defamatory words are made in the furtherance of the commission of another intentional tort. E.g., Murtagh v. Hurley, 40 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Zimmerman v. D.C.A. at Welleby, Inc., 505 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). "

Source of Ruling

3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf

Yet Plaintiff Marc Randazza was easily GRANTED an unconstitutional preliminary injunction against Blogger Crystal Cox and iViewit inventor Eliot Bernstein, why?

Well connected First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza FLAT OUT lied about me, perjured himself over and over and Judge Gloria Navarro took him at his word and NO PROOF and stole my search engine ranking, my intellectual property, my work product and caused me irreparable harm to myself, my business and my relationships.

Here is the Unconstitutional TRO Filing  (Randazza Filing)
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.2.0.pdf

Added Flat out Lies to TRO  (Randazza Filing)
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.6.0.pdf

REPLY with more Lies and Attacks regarding the TRO  (Randazza Filing)
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.12.0.pdf

Another REPLY (Randazza Filing)
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.28.0.pdf

ORDER by Judge Gloria Navarro GRANTING Unconstitutional TRO / Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Defendant Blogger Crystal Cox in favor of Marc Randazza.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.14.0.pdf

Another ORDER by Judge Gloria Navarro GRANTING Unconstitutional TRO / Motion for Preliminary Injunction Just in case the FIRST ONE was not heard.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.41.0.pdf

My, Defendant Crystal Cox's Response and Objection to Unconstitutional TRO / Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Defendant Crystal Cox's  Objection
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.29.0.pdf

Defendant Crystal Cox's  REPLY to Response
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.30.0.pdf

Randazza et al v. Cox et al

District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040

Cause;  15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Nature Of Suit:  840 Trademark

1) VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL CYBERPIRACY PROTECTIONS

– 15 U.S.C. § 8131

2) CYBERSQUATTING - 15 U.S.C. §

1125(d)

3) RIGHT OF PUBLICITY – NRS

597.810

4) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF

PUBLICITY

5) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF

INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION

6) CIVIL CONSPIRACY

Other Preliminary Injunctions Judge Gloria Navarro Gave Randazza Legal Group

even though they are allegedly "Rare" and Unconstitutional 

"ViaView, Inc. v. Chanson et al"

"Court Description: ORDER Granting 6 EX PARTE MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by ViaView, Inc. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have until 12/7/2012 to file Response to 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Plaintiff shall file reply by 12/21/2021. Motion Hearing set for 1/2/2013 02:30 PM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/30/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)"

Source

law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv01657/90093/10

In SOME Cases, a Preliminary Injunction is Unconstitutional and Marc Randazza DEFENDS that position. Yet he used an unconstitutional Injunction to steal my work product, my intellectual property, my search engine ranking and my online content.

Preliminary Injunction are Unconstitutional Depending on Which Side your Attorney is On.

Opening Brief in the Irina Chevaldina Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Attorney Marc Randazza. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiNS1DeFZVdWxJSkU/view?usp=sharing

In the District of Nevada, Judge Gloria Navarro's court, the Most Important thing is the Attorneys Pay Check, and the Law, the Constitutional Rights of Defendants, Due Process seems to be Irrelevant.

Judge Gloria Navarro seems to CLEARLY favors Randazza Legal Group as far as I see it.

These attorneys sue whoever they want, they get their attorney fees, intellectual property, fines paid to them and what ever they want in the MAGICAL Land La La Lawless Land of Judge Gloria Navarro of District of Nevada. 

More Research Links on that Topic

vegasinc.com/news/2011/jul/09/attorneys-seek-fee-injunction-against-righthaven/

vegasinc.com/news/2011/jul/06/righthaven-ordered-pay-defendants-legal-fees/

Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited

aw.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv01057/88374/38

"The Plaintiff has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims sufficient for the Court to issue a limited Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement and inducement of copyright infringement. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)

To show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must show that: (1) it owns the copyright to which its infringement claims relate; and, (2) Defendants violated one of the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the works. See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991);

Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2010); Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir 1977); Educational Testing Servs. v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533, 538 (3d Cir. 1977). These two factors have been clearly established by the Plaintiff."

Source of Above Judge Gloria Navarro RULING Favoring the SAME Plaintiff

nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120621_0003126.DNV.htm/qx

Marc Randazza does not and did NOT have "substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim". Yet he was favored over his TARGET / his Victims.

Why is no FBI Agent, Dept. Of Justice Agent, the Nevada Attorney General, or the U.S. Attorney General Looking at all this?

It sure seems to VIOLATE the Rights of the Targets, the Defendants in some sort of pattern of "shakedown", in my Opinion

More Research on the Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited and this Same  Attorney, who sure is GOOD at Showing Alleged "merits" of winning, Before a Defendant has any First Amendment Adjudication or Right to Due Process.

rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/nevada-district-court/98475/liberty-media-holdings-llc-v-ff-magnat-limited-et-al/summary/

Love this Part "Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings LLC. Motion ripe 6/20/2012."

I get threats of death, violence and Judge Gloria Navarro IGNORES my Real Emergency. Yet Gloria Navarro allows Randazza Legal Group to abuse the process and get emergency protective orders and Injunctions.

Frozen Accounts, Preliminary Injunctions, FORCED Attorney Fees and whatever Randazza Legal Group wants they get, WHY?

scribd.com/doc/105188141/Liberty-Media-Holdings-v-FF-Magnat

"Section 505 of the Copyright Act grants district courts discretion to award “

a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs"

Randazza Legal Group sues their TARGET, and the Judge Forces their VICTIM to PAY the ATTORNEYS outrageous Fee's.  And if you Don't Judge Gloria Navarro will Freeze your Accounts. Pattern and History, I THINK SO.. in my NON-Attorney OPINION.

Don't Forget Liberty Media Holdings allegedly is infringing on the iViewit Technology and many companies owned, at least in part by Liberty Media Holdings are named in iViewit Technology. Randazza SUED Eliot Bernstein and got a Preliminary Injunction against him as well, with NO First Amendment Adjudication.

The Full Hypocritical Filing of Marc Randazza Regarding the 

Unconstitutional actions of Preliminary Injunctions.

docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiT3M2c1FVbHZqX2c/edit

Page 8 of above;

"This appeal Seeks to cure an unlawful prior restraint on the Appellant’s First Amendment rights, improperly imposed by the lower court. On November 19, 2012, the circuit court enjoined Appellant from writing, “defamatory” blogs 'in the future, despite expressly making “no findings of facts as to actual ‘violations of law by the [Appellants], except that [Appellants] have blogged extensively about the Appellee] and many of these blogs are arguably defamatory.” (RÃ/14)

The circuit court made this decision Without following the mandates of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. However, even if it had, the injunction is patently unconstitutional."

                      WOW, "the injunction is patently unconstitutional", it is "unlawful prior restraint", EXCEPT for when Marc Randazza uses it against a Blogger he wants to SUPPRESS the SPEECH of.

                

Page 10

"Months and months of litigation, thousands of dollars, and thousands of pages of documents later, RKA sought a clearly unconstitutional remedy - an injunction against alleged defamation prior to any court determination that the speech at issue was even legally capable of defamatory meaning, much less Whether it was actually defamatory, privileged, or otherwise protected by the First Amendment. (R Vl-6)

The resulting lnjunction Order was so over-broad and subject to abuse, that the RKA even sought an order for contempt based upon Chevaldina doing no more than reporting the existence of the Order itself."

All that money to seek a "clearly unconstitutional remedy"? And Marc Randazza defends the opposite position he took to constitutionally violate Crystal Cox an Eliot Bernstein?

Full Hypocritical Motion Linked Below

docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiT3M2c1FVbHZqX2c/edit

Attorney Marc Randazza sought a "clearly unconstitutional remedy , "injunction ..prior to any court determination" from Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein, even though that "speech" was protected under the First Amendment and with NO First Amendment Adjudication. 

Randazza Legal Group, Marc Randazza stole massive online content, work product, intellectual property and used the lawsuit to violate my privacy rights, harass me, defame me, lie about me, harass me and to post private emails, get my bank account and wire records, harass and bully my church, threaten my ex's, get private proprietary business information from customers and clients and to put me and my sources under constant attack, threats, stalking, harassing, bullying and defaming for over 2 years now and counting. He did this as an "officer of the court". Clearly abusing his power.

Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group are

CLEARLY acting outside of the Law and are Violating

the rights of citizens every single day.

And they are using Judges, Attorneys, 

Investigators, Officers of the Court, and Thugs to do it,

in my Opinion.

EXPOSE Randazza Legal Group.

I say Indict Marc Randazza, J. Malcom DeVoy,

Michael Whiteacre, Ronald Green, Sean Thomas, 

and others I ALLEGE are acting in Civil and Criminal 

Conspiracy with them every single day.

Some More Fun on Preliminary Injunctions and Marc Randazza

http://crystalcoxmedia.blogspot.de/2013/03/pro-se-litigant-investigative-blogger.html

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group had NO CASE against Crystal Cox or Eliot Bernstein, as is easily seen in the Denial of a Summary Judgement which CLEARLY shoots down every cause of action of the Plaintiff as a matter of LAW.


More on that at the Link Below
http://ethicscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/12/randazza-v-cox-lanham-act-trademark.html


Here is the RULING that Denied the Summary Judgement
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

Randazza V. Cox Lanham Act, Trademark Infringement, District of Nevada; Plaintiff Marc Randazza HAS no Case against Blogger Crystal Cox and NEVER Did.

Randazza et al v. Cox et al

District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040

Cause;  15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Nature Of Suit:  840 Trademark

Below is a Video of me, Crystal Cox discussing
the Original Complaint and Reading some of it.

Here is a Link to the Original Complaint attorney Marc Randazza filed against Blogger Crystal Cox to shut down and steal her gripe sites exercising her Free Speech Rights over him.

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.1.0.pdf

Below is a DENIAL of a Summary Judgement in Which
Shoots Down ALL of Marc Randazza, Plaintiff's ALLEGED "cause of action".

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

Below is a Video of Me Reading the Denial of Randazza's Summary

Here is the Entire Docket

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

Randazza et al v. Cox et al

District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040

Cause;  15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Nature Of Suit:  840 Trademark

1) VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL

CYBERPIRACY PROTECTIONS

– 15 U.S.C. § 8131

2) CYBERSQUATTING - 15 U.S.C. §

1125(d)

3) RIGHT OF PUBLICITY – NRS

597.810

4) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF

PUBLICITY

5) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF

INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION

6) CIVIL CONSPIRACY

All I Can do is tell the whole TRUTH and nothing but. If Judges let the Randazza Legal Groupies break the LAW, well NOTHING I can do about it. Still the TRUTH IS THE TRUTH.

"New Jersey RICO, Crystal Cox v. Peter L. Michaelson. 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act COX et al v. MICHAELSON et al. 3:13-cv-03136. 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization"

 COX et al v. MICHAELSON et al. 3:13-cv-03136

The Randazza Legal Groupies have been EXPOSED. Whether a Judge or any other person in a position of authority does anything about it, there is nothing I can do. I have filed in Federal Court, and it is clear that so have others. Randazza Legal Group I Allege is protected by the Porn Industry, which I allege is mob, mafia, also Russian mafia, human trafficking rings and well let's just say the baddest, darkest, most evil out there.

Still the TRUTH is the Truth and I, Monica Foster aKa Alexandria Mayers, Joseph Rakofsky, Roca Labs, Desi Foxx aKa Diana Grandmason, and many others have told the Truth about these guys again and again. Yet this gang stalking group of lawyers protect each other and are thus far protected by judges, and the justice system as a whole.

That Does NOT Change the TRUTH

The Truth is at that Investigative, Whistleblowing blogs of Monica Foster aKa Alexandria Mayers and Desi Foxx aKa Diana Grandmason and the PORN THUGS keep attacking, suing, threatening and well just because they are seemingly above the law, that does not make their YAMMER truthful, lawful and certainly not MORAL. 

 COX et al v. MICHAELSON et al. 3:13-cv-03136

docket

New Jersey RICO, Crystal Cox v. Peter L. Michaelson.
and many other Randazza Legal Gang Stalking Groupies

New Jersey RICO

Research Links to More RICO Cases Filed by Crystal Cox against the Randazza Legal Groupies

Crystal L. Cox v. Randazza Legal Group Florida RICO ~ 1:13-cv-21924-DLG. Cox v. Randazza Legal Group, her Former Attorney Marc J. Randazza
http://www.firstamendmenttalk.com/?p=135

http://www.firstamendmenttalk.com/?p=137

Docket
http://ia601608.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.92918/gov.uscourts.nvd.92918.docket.html

Complaint
http://ia801608.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.92918/gov.uscourts.nvd.92918.1.1.pdf

"STALKERS SEAN MATTHEW TOMPKINS & ARI SCOTT BASS BULLY THE POOR TO PROMOTE RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP"

"On the afternoon of November 26, 2014 (the day just before the Thanksgiving), two well documented stalkers by the names of Sean Matthew Tompkins andAri Scott Bass (each who have an extensive criminal history) decided to utilize their porn industry hate site to bully and harass Alexandra Melody Mayers fka Monica Foster in effort to promote Randazza Legal Group (a porn industry lawfirm known for defending pedophiles, donating funds in attempt to halt legislation meant to protect adult performer’s health and safety, and for being closely affiliated with the pornographic industry’s political face – The Free Speech Coalition).

While Alexandra fka Monica was webcamming the early afternoon of November 26, 2014 she conveyed to her viewers that she’d appreciate tips for her performance so that she could purchase herself a Thanksgiving meal.

As of current, Alexandra is experiencing extreme financial difficulty and works independently as an adult webcam model part time while maintaining a non-adult industry job part time simultaneously (she is not on well fare nor does she receive assistance from non-profit organizations). 

Either Sean Matthew Tompkins, Ari Scott Bass or one of their associates entered her chat room utilizing the screen name “Organ Shifter” to observe her webcam performance & log her dialogue.

click to enlarge – This blog post was created to bully, harass & intimidate Alexandra Mayers while simultaneously promoting porn industry lawfirm Randazza Legal Group

After Alexandra fka Monica completed her live webcam session the blog below was written and posted on Sean Matthew Tompkins & Ari Scott Bass’s hate site in effort to bully, harass, intimidate and make fun of Alexandra’s financial situation while simultaneously promoting Randazza Legal Group (who is currently being sued by Roca Labs for defamation, slander and libel).

Alexandra fka Monica is currently defending herself in a frivolous lawsuit filed in civil court by the owner of Randazza Legal Group’s wife for in excess of $50,000 (a lawsuit which is based on 3 tweets). 

Wouldn’t it be ironic if by this time next year it’s Randazza Legal Group who’s stuck in the poor house rather than Alexandra Melody Mayers…

After all, if Randazza Legal Group continues to donate $20,000 (twenty times more than the average pornographer and the equivalent amount to Larry Flynt Productions) to campaign efforts that consistently fail such as No On Measure B / No On Government Waste – eventually they WILL deplete themselves of resources.

click to enlarge – Randazza Legal Group donated as much as Larry Flynt of Hustler to No On Measure B / No On Government Waste

Roca Labs files a lawsuit against Randazza Legal Group for slander / libel / defamation."
Source and More
http://www.xxxorganizedcrime.com/?p=147

100% FACT BELOW

Roca Labs Says:

"Despite being an Officer of the Court and a practicing member of the Florida Bar,  RANDAZZA has waged his war against ROCA by intentionally and maliciously publishing many false  and defamatory statements in his pleadings, with the intent to share them to his contacts in the media,  and indeed by directly speaking to the media about ROCA with the intent to have them publish false,  misleading and defamatory articles about ROCA, and by harassing and making derogatory statements  about ROCA via his personal social media sites including his Twitter account"

Source and Full Legal Action against First Amendment PORN Attorney Marc Randazza aKa scumbag, hypocritical asshole, liar, and lawless.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1357796/246279896-roca-labs-randazza-complaint.pdf"

NOW That is FACT whether a Court Agrees or NOT does not change that it is fact and the Randazza Legal Groupies do it over and over, year after year, case after case, target after target.

Randazza Legal Group acts in the same way, in deliberate action, willful intent, purposely and though he knows the law very well. Randazza Legal Group does this in conspiracy to silence, suppress, attack, harass, intimidate and shake down their targets. 

RICO ( Pattern and History ) is so easy to prove if any actual Law abiding Prosecutor would look into these cases or if the Judges I have told would actually care about the LAW.

Folks Just because Marc Randazza, Adam Steinbaugh and Kenneth White KEEP lying and abusing the court process. Does not make it right and it does not make their blather the TRUTH. They are on the WRONG side of the LAW and the wrong side of the Moral Compass.

Ken White: Still Stroking his Favorite Prick 

Marc Randazza

No Matter How Many Randazza Legal Groupies SHOUT

Loud and Proud Defending the hypocrisy, arrogance and lawlessness of 

their Porn God Marc Randazza; 

Well the LIE is STILL the LIE

No matter how many of you Jackass lying, lawless attorneys come to protect Marc Randazza from a girl picking on him, well that does not change the ADJUDICATED FACTS.

Kenneth White of Popehat.com does not tell the NOT the truth, that is not his mission.

Kenneth White of Popehat.com is simply protecting the Agenda of Porn Attorneys and the Free Speech Coalition which is an organization to protect Porn Companies and DOES not protect those in the industry which is easily seen by the investigative blogs of Monica Foster aKa Alexandra Melody and Desi Foxx aKa Diana Grandmasson.

Kenneth White speaks out his ASS. 

Yes look at the Crystal Cox case, one women, me, fighting back as hard as I have been able to and Pro Se, which  Kenneth White slams all pro se folks because then the Randazza Legal Groupies can't make their quick buck.

Kenneth White is protected by the owner of the rip off report. Look at my Rip Off Report on Marc Randazza, it's the only Rip Off Report EVER where the person complaining gets pushed down in the report to make for for  Kenneth White to lie about me, the person who filed the complaint.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Marc-Randazza-of-Randazza-Legal-Group/Las-Vegas-Nevada-89135/Marc-Randazza-of-Randazza-Legal-Group-Marc-Randazza-of-Randazza-Legal-Group-Marc-Randazza-1112488

Rip Off Report won't let me post anymore to this. Rip Off Report gave Ken White a spot on top of my report unlike any other Rip Off Report . 

Believe what you want about me, I don't really care. I keep yapping to help their other victims not stand alone or look to the be the only ones who have had the same abusive, lawless, unconstitutional experience with the Randazza Legal Groupies.

Look at the Joseph Rakofsky Case, Crystal Cox Case, Monica Foster Case, Righthaven and many more. Pay Attention to the forced attorney fees, settlements and the attorneys who blog parts of motions that Randazza tells them to as if Marc Randazza's LIES in court motions is Adjudicated Fact when really it is lying blather that abuses the court process for private retaliation and personal gain.

Kenneth White recently said: 

"Roca Labs is mistaking aggression for strategy. Randazza, by filing his notice of related case, has alerted the federal court hearing the PissedConsumer.com case that Roca Labs is flailing around suing opposing lawyers, which will not go over well. Roca Labs has hired what appears to be an improbably matriculated Muppet to champion their case, despite a patent lack of qualifications. Roca Labs thinks that suing Marc Randazza to shut him up is going to end well. They should have asked Raanan Katz or Crystal Cox how that would turn out."

yes ASK Crystal Cox. I am Pleased with how things have turned out SO FAR. I have Exposed a THUG of a lying hypocritical asshole attorney, and hey I am just a one girl.

oh and CLUELESS KEN WHITE I did not sue Marc Randazza to SHUT HIM UP.

I sued to fight for my life, to fight back and 

to stand up for victims not to CENSOR. 

You have me confused with Fucktard Marc Randazza.

Hey Hypocritical LAWLESS Asshole Ken White, IT IS NOT aggressive to stand up to aggression. We are defending ourselves against YOUR ILLEGAL Attacks. There are tons of related cases. Randazza is unethical, and acts outside of the law in the same way over and over. The proof is EASY to see.

Tell the TRUTH. Do the RIGHT Thing.

Win or Lose ROCA LABS is the Tipping Point. As there is NO DENYING what YOU Randazza Legal Groupies do acting in conspiracy, aiding and abetting.

Whether the courts "believe" it or not, well that will be what it will be. But there is so much proof now, for you to keep Yammering the LIE is simply futile.

YOUR game is OVER. The TRUTH IS OUT.

Ken White seems to think if you lie over and over it becomes the TRUTH, that is SIMPLY not a Reality based Notion or course of action as I See it.

Marc Randazza is the one that uses AGGRESSION instead of strategy. 

Randazza bullies, he sues, he threatens, he steals banking and wire information, he calls your ex's and threatens them, he calls your customer and clients and threatens them, he forces information from your church, he violates your constitutional rights, he violates your privacy rights, he endangers your life, makes your private emails public, violates your client rights, allegedly threatens to throw bombs if he can get away with it rumor has it, and he posts the make and models of porn insiders cars and hopes death upon them. Randazza is dangerously, violently, above the law AGGRESSIVE and so his his THUG gang stalking groupies and Randazza seems to think it's "Strategy".

Caution 100% FACT BELOW

Roca Labs Says:

"Despite being an Officer of the Court and a practicing member of the Florida Bar, RANDAZZA has waged his war against ROCA by intentionally and maliciously publishing many false and defamatory statements in his pleadings, with the intent to share them to his contacts in the media, and indeed by directly speaking to the media about ROCA with the intent to have them publish false, misleading and defamatory articles about ROCA, and by harassing and making derogatory statements about ROCA via his personal social media sites including his Twitter account"

Source and Full Legal Action against First Amendment PORN Attorney Marc Randazza aKa scumbag, hypocritical asshole, liar, and lawless.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1357796/246279896-roca-labs-randazza-complaint.pdf"

NOW That is FACT whether a Court Agrees or NOT does not change that it is fact and the Randazza Legal Groupies do it over and over, year after year, case after case, target after target.

Folks, Look at the Details of the Crystal Cox case. The JUDGE sure seems to be getting Randazza's GAME. And he won't be able to play it much longer on many more victims. YAY.

Seems like my counterclaims are still alive and Dickhead Dazza's claims are actually NULL and VOID. .. have I really LOST Kenny Boy BLATHER?  Or do I just need a GOOD attorney to get My 10 Million for me?

 Easy Money.. Defamation and Malpractice still alive and WELL as far as I see it.
Want to Represent me? eMail me at ReverendCrystalCox@Gmail.com 

Randazza v. Cox and COUNTERCLAIM Docket
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

Thing is YA look at my case. I would say I WON. 

I have exposed these guys, I fought back and I continue to so how did Randazza beat ME, Crystal Cox? HE DID NOT. Just because the courts FAIL to obey the law and FAIL to bring the Randazza Legal Groupies to Justice thus far that does not mean there will not be a tipping point and one day they will ALL go to Prison. That's my WISH.  And that they stop creating victims of porn industry whistleblowers and anyone else they don't like for whatever reason they come up with.

They attacked me for years from all sides 

and still I am in HISTORY books and they are NOT.

So Neener Neener

I WON. They DID NOT. YaY for Me. 

And well Roca Labs may win, maybe not. WHATEVER. What they said on the docket is FACT plain and simple over and over. And one day the Randazza Legal Groupies will go to PRISON for Criminal RICO and Racketeering.. Oh I hope and Pray.

Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group is KING of "frivolous lawsuits"

Marc Randazza got all BUTTHURT cuz I called his wife a slut, I bought his domain name and his wife and child's domain... WOW and he was advertising as a Domain Name and trademark expert... NOT!!

oh and I FIRED his dumb, arrogant, abusive ass so he did not get to be the attorney on MY groundbreaking, landmark, stunning, first of it's kind AMAZING Free Speech case that I fought for and has now made history. And I WAS PRO SE.

Eugene Volokh, my awesome attorney on the case, defended the merits of the case I had already laid out and guess what I WON and now ALL Independent Bloggers have Equal Rights in the courts And the MONOPOLY that Big Media HAD on Free SPEECH is over.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group is NOT a TRUE First Amendment Advocate, he is a First Amendment Expert and he uses that to get his way, bully his targets, engage in online defamation and harassment campaigns and to STEAL intellectual property, get settlements, get his legal fees FORCED and much more SICK and I Allege, Illegal Outcomes.

STOP LYING

OBEY THE LAW

DO THE RIGHT THING

The Ken White, unethical, paint in false light, flat out lying blog post is at
"Roca Labs, Lacking A Hornet Nest Into Which It Could Stick Its Dick, Has Sued Marc Randazza"
http://www.popehat.com/2014/11/11/roca-labs-lacking-a-hornet-nest-into-which-it-could-stick-its-dick-has-sued-marc-randazza/

Adam Steinbaugh and Ken White.. Stroke Stroke Stroke on their favorite PRICK Marc Randazza. But gee darn that will NEVER turn the LIE into the TRUTH no matter how much you blather at what a GOOD GUY your hypocritical asshole GODDAZZA is.