Hypocritical Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group claims common law Trademark against Crystal Cox yet whines about the claims of Others.

Hypocritical Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group wrote this article below, seemingly to attack, make fun of, harass and bully a guy because he claimed copyright in his name.

Years later Randazza sued me claiming a Trademark in his name on my Gripe Sites about him.

"Former Rep Ted Klaudt claims "common law copyright" in his name to try and suppress news stories about him raping his kids"

Mr. Klaudt apparently started sending notices of his "common law copyright" to news agencies in order to stop them from reporting on the fact that he is serving time for raping his foster daughters. Klaudt was convicted on four counts of rape for fondling his underage foster daughters in "examinations" that he performed on them under the ruse of claiming that he was going to help them sell their eggs to infertile couples. The sick bastard got 44 years in prison for rape and another 10 years for tampering with witnesses in his trial.

Klaudt's letter to the Associated Press claims that anyone who wants to use his name must "file a written request 20 days in advance," and that he would pursue claims against anyone who violated the notice.

I can't be certain what the motivation for this move might be, but I presume that Klaudt doesn't like the fact that news organizations like to inform the public about sick bastards who molest their own kids -- especially when they happen to be lawmakers (or ex-lawmakers as it were). I guess he figured that this would convince a few people to stop using his name.

Guess what Klaudt, you just made yourself even more famous, short eyes."

Source
http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2009/former-rep-ted-klaudt-claims-common-law-copyright-his-name-try-and-suppress-news-stories-a

Hypocritical Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group will simply sue you, perjure himself to WIPO and STEAL your intellectual property and flat out take your domain names all in the alleged name of a an implied Trademark that he never registered, and never had. And to STOP, SUPPRESS the Free Speech of Blogger Crystal Cox who had many Gripe Sites about him and his Law Firm.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group abused the courts, used the Lanham Act, Trademark Laws and Unconstitutional Protective Orders to shut down blogs, steal internet placement and search ranking, harass and bully me, take down content, chill speech, remove content that spoke critical of him and all in the name of ALLEGED Trademark Rights.

Randazza has sent copyright notices to get places like docstoc and Google to remove court motions and other documents and blogs I posted using his name.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group is above the LAW, Period.

Check out the Full Hypocritical Randazza v. Cox Docket

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

Marc Randazza Talks a Good Game for Freedom of Speech and First Amendment Rights, However Marc Randazza DOES not Walk the Talk when it comes to his own Butthurt EGO Trip and the First Amendment Rights of Others. Marc Randazza is a Hypocrite, a Liar, an Asshole and has Violated my First Amendment Rights.

"What Do Sandra Fluke, Ted Klaudt, Rush Limbaugh, Isaac Eiland-Hall, Blogger Crystal Cox and the Double Talking First Amendment YAP of Marc Randazza Asshole have in Common?


Marc Randazza Emails Blogger Crystal Cox and Demands She Turn over Marc Randazza .com, even though Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group and Corbin Fisher, has fought for others to own domain names with people's name and even worse.

Though Marc Randazza knows that Blogger Crystal Cox won a WIPO case involving several Domain Names of Top Lawyers of one of the Worlds Biggest Law Firms, Proskauer Rose, still Marc Randazza threatens me, blogger Crystal Cox, that I if I don't turn over the Domain Name that will make him an enemy.  Marc Randazza knows I have every legal and ethical right to have bought and to own Marc Randazza .com, yet Marc Randazza is teaching me a lesson by working with the Plaintiff in Obsidian Vs. Cox to steal my Domain Names as Assets, even though a couple of months ago Marc Randazza could have bought Marc Randazza .com for $10.

Marc Randazza is a such a hypocrite as he writes about the Sandra Fluke, Rush Limbaugh Issue and seems to be defending free speech, yet at the same time claims that she is Butthurt and that Butthurt does not pay in the United States on His Watch.  Yet at the Same Time Marc Randazza is trying to make Blogger Crystal Cox PAY for his Butthurt over not buying his own name as a Dotcom (DotDUMB that Was), anyway now Marc Randazza is headed to Portland Oregon for a March 23 Deposition, one in which I am sure if you check his communications records, Marc Randazza contacted the Plaintiff's Camp to work AGAINST Crystal Cox Blogger, and Against Free Speech.

In Marc Randazza's article regarding Sandra Fluke, Marc Randazza Said this,
"When a plaintiff alleging defamation is a public figure, he or she must show that the allegedly false statements were made with actual malice – that is, knowing falsity, or a reckless disregard for the truth. N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan"  SO Marc Randazza is fully aware that in Obsidian V. Cox, Obsidian and Kevin Padrick are Public Figures and I had NO Actual Malice.  Marc Randazza spoke with me and told other First Amendment Lawyers that he represented me, Blogger Crystal Cox, and claimed to have been negotiating with the Plaintiff, which was news to me.  Now if Marc Randazza claims this did not happen, I am sure the other Attorneys will not lose their career in a perjured deposition to lie for Marc Randazza.

Link to the Butthurt Sandra Fluke / Marc Randazza Article
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/no-sandra-fluke-does-not-have-valid-defamation-claim-against-rush-limbaugh

I want to Sue Marc Randazza, email me at SavvyBroker@yahoo.com to represent me Pro Bono.  Surely Marc Randazza has liability insurance for his yaps and threats. And isn't it illegal to act as if he represented me and try and negotiate a deal giving my private information to the Plaintiff, when he had not discussed with me, the "Alleged" Client?

Marc Randazza may flat out lie to you and say he was Subpoenad and did not contact the Plaintiff First, thing is over 6 years I have registered hundreds of "other people's names" as domain names, so why in the world would the Plaintiff Subpoena only ONE.  The Truth is that Marc Randazza contacted them to make me, Blogger Crystal Cox, pay for the Marc Randazza Butthurt.

Here is the Article where Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group says that Butthurt is Butthurt, and not defamation and that Butthurt does not pay in the United States on his watch.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/no-sandra-fluke-does-not-have-valid-defamation-claim-against-rush-limbaugh even though when it comes to Butthurt Marc Randazza he sure is teaching Blogger Crystal Cox a lesson in what it is to be an "enemy" of the Infamous double talking, hypocritical ASSHOLE Marc Randazza.

Marc Randazza Defended Isaac Eiland-Hall in the buying, owning and using the domain name
"www.GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com" , yet Marc Randazza emailed me and told me I have no right to own a domain name that resembles his name. Talk about Double Standards.

Oh and Let's not forget the Ted Klaudt Common Law Copyright Dispute, and check out the Photo that Marc Randazza used for that article, (it is below on the left).  In the Ted Klaudt case.

The Headline Reads "Former Rep Ted Klaudt claims "common law copyright" in his name to try and suppress news stories about him raping his kids".
Marc Randazza Says, "We sure do see a lot of intellectual property abuse around here. This has to be the best one yet. Former South Dakota State Representative Ted Klaudt claims that he has a "common law copyright" in his name, and thus any news organization or other publication that uses his name must pay him a licensing fee of $500,000."

Yet Marc Randazza feels that he has copyright of his name. So the Name Marc Randazza is a bigger, better name than Former South Dakota State Representative Ted Klaudt's name? How does that Work? Marc Randazza is willing to take help the Plaintiff in Obsidian V. Cox to take the Domain Names of Blogger Crystal Cox in effort to hide the Secret Deals, Corruption, and Conflicts of Industry, involving Law Firms Tonkon TorpSussman Shank, Perkins Coie and Miller Nash and involving Solar Tax Credits and the Actions of Obsidian Finance Group's Kevin Padrick as a Trustee in a $40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy out of Bend Oregon. Marc Randazza is also willing to STOMP on the Free Speech and First Amendment Rights of all in helping a Plaintiff that he admitted was certainly hurting Free Speech for All.

In the Ted Klaudt Scandal, Marc Randazza accuses the actions of Ted Klaudt to be simply to stop a "news organization" from informing the public. Which is exactly what I was doing. Obsidian Finance Group had no legal right to be the Trustee, neither did Kevin Padrick, as he was an insider. This case needs investigated and many were harmed and not just financially, lives were ruined. Marc Randazza will now be named in the Federal RICO Complaint I am Filing, as Well as FBI Complaints and Department of Justice Complaints. I have been investigating this story for 4 years, and Butthurt Marc Randazza is now on the side of suppressing information but taking my domain names and siding with the WRONG side First Amendment Rights.

In that Same Article Marc Randazza Says this to Ted Klaudt.
"Guess what Klaudt, you just made yourself even more famous, short eyes."
I Say This to Hypocrite Marc Randazza, "Guess What Fuckhead Marc Randazza, your working with the Bad Guys and you WILL Be even "more famous" as a thug, liar and asshole" But surely that was what you were going for.

Source information for Marc Randazza Article and Marc Randazza Case and Yammer Research

Ted Klaudt Article, Complete with Photo
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/former-rep-ted-klaudt-claims-common-law-copyright-his-name-try-and-suppress-news-stories-a

Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke Research Links

http://www.easternecho.com/index.php/article/2012/03/pointcounterpoint_limbaugh_slut_scandaldebate_hijacked_by_the_left

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/megyn-kelly-sandra-fluke-oreilly_n_1334470.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204603004577269491399954950.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/07/patricia-heaton-s-history-of-outbursts-sandra-fluke-attack-no-anomaly.html

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/no-sandra-fluke-does-not-have-valid-defamation-claim-against-rush-limbaugh
Marc Randazza is a LIAR when He Claims to Love the First Amendment, Marc Randazza only loves the First Amendment when it gets him a JOB.

"www.GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com" Case Research Links
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_free_speech_lawyer_Marc_Randazza_discusses_Glenn_Beck_parody

http://www.crystalcox.com/2012/03/marc-randazza-on-wrong-side-of-free.html

Posted here by
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox
aKa, Marc Randazza ENEMY
WhistleblowerMedia@Gmail.com"

Original Posted At

http://attorneycorruption.blogspot.com/2012/03/marc-randazza-talks-good-game-for.html

"The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned the District Court’s ruling and declared that Cox was a journalist and therefore protected by the freedom of speech laws and the First Amendment."

NOW as a Matter of Law and Case Precedence, Due to the Crystal Cox Case ALL Bloggers are Legally Protected to Break the News and Report the News just as any main stream, institutional press Journalist, no matter who they work for.

"JOURNALIST OR BLOGGER: PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR NOT"

by Thomas Halek

"The opinions of the courts decide whether a blogger is a journalist and afforded the rights provided under the First Amendment.

DEFINITION OF A JOURNALIST

Dr. Anthony Curtis, Mass Communication Dept., University of North Carolina at Pembroke, in an article titled What is Journalism said, “Journalism is the practice of investigating and reporting events, issues and trends to the mass audiences of print, broadcast and online media such as newspapers, magazines and books, radio and television stations and networks, and blogs and social and mobile media.”

"IN THE EYES OF THE COURTS

How the courts have ruled on whether a blogger is a journalist and protected by the First Amendment has varied. In a paper titled, The Future of Online Legal Journalism, written by Christopher J. Davey, the Director of Public Information for the Supreme Court of Ohio, said, “The court speaks only through their opinions.” In the paper, Davey describes how the legal system’s view of on-line journalism has grown and changed since 1964 and the consequences because of it.

OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP v. CRYSTAL COX

On Mashable.com a headline reads, “Judge Hits Blogger With $2.5 Million Charge for Not Being a Journalist.” The case is OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP v. CRYSTAL COX. In The Atlantic, Robinson Meyer published an article U.S. Court: Bloggers Are Journalists. In the article, Meyer describes the case and the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit ruling.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned the District Court’s ruling and declared that Cox was a journalist and therefore protected by the freedom of speech laws and the First Amendment.

EMERITUS PROFESSOR JAMES PIELEMEIER INTERVIEW

Emeritus Professor James Pielemeier, a retired law professor from Hamline University, in an interview said, “It did seem to me that there was a trend towards treating bloggers like journalists in some areas, such as statutory Reporter’s Privileges (e.g. about confidential sources), at least if the statutory language arguably permitted such a result.” Pielemeier also said, “In general, there seemed to be a trend towards treating bloggers like journalists in other areas of first amendment law.”

Source and Full Article; Check it Out.
http://www.thomashalek.com/?page_id=419

More
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

A MAJOR Federal Victory by Blogger Crystal Cox paves the way for ALL Bloggers to Be Protected in a Court of Law to REPORT the "NEWS".

"In contrast, media resides in a legal framework that is deeply valued and protected. Since before theFirst Amendment of the Constitution was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, America stood out for its high tolerance of free speech and legal protection of the press. 

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost," wrote Thomas Jefferson to Dr. James Currie in 1786. 

Liberty was to be more valued than the dangers of defamation, a lesson that President Jefferson would learn for himself when mud began to be slung his way.

James Madison, 1st Amendment advocate/Wikipedia

That freedom and its supporting structures have become the air we breathe, ingrained institutionally and psychologically with the public and legally within our country's basic body of law.

Bloggers and website hosts can be thankful for their extensive protection from defamation lawsuits, like the attempts by former franchisor Mark Golob and personal injury attorney Nikolaus Reed, to two seismic events that have moved America farther down the road and further away from other countries in what it means to have a free press—New York Times Co. v. Sullivan andSection 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Newspapers had been weighed down by libel lawsuits from southern states that had a chilling effect on journalists reporting about civil rights violators. 

They acted as a news deterrent because the press feared that they would incur a defamation lawsuit by those cast in an unflattering light. The 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed all that. According to Justice William Brennan in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling ofNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to provide that "debate on public issues ... [should be] … uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." It created a "malice standard." It didn't matter if a journalist made errors in reporting. 

What mattered was if a report was reckless in its disregard of truth because of malice, which is difficult to prove.

The Civil Rights movement, Vietnam and then Watergate all eroded the public's faith in government and eventually corporate institutions. Enron, Arthur Anderson, AIG and Lehman Brothers only accelerated that distrust. 

For the sake of more open discussion and transparency, the public and the laws have greatly increased in toleration of attacks on reputations.

Then came Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Online host intermediaries like social media's Blue MauMau, Twitter, Facebook, Blogspot, UnhappyFranchisee or Yelp are not held liable for the writings and speech posted by others on their sites.

"I think Section 230 is the Internet equivalent of New York Times v Sullivan," says attorney Paul Steinberg. In essence, host providers of public forums are not liable for what people post on their site. "That fundamentally changed the game." Steinberg argues that social media couldn't exist without the legal protections of Section 230.

The win in the Superior Court of Mendocino County, California, by Sean Kelly comes just a few months after a major federal victory by another blogger."

Source and Full Article

http://www.bluemaumau.org/13936/freedom_press_includes_bloggers

For More

http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Bloggers all over the US are Rejoicing at the Ground Breaking Decision in the Crystal Cox Case. Now ALL Bloggers have Equal rights to REPORT the News and Break the NEWS. Equal to any mainstream Journalist or Reporter.

"On January 17, 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court issued its decision giving Cox the same protection as a journalist. Interestingly enough, the decision was based in part on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Court wrote, in part:

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.

Bloggers all over the US are rejoicing as are we.

The decision is short, so we are including it below the fold."

Source and Full Document

http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2014/01/19/bloggers-and-first-amendment-fans-rejoice/

For More
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group; Copyright Troll Lawyers – Meet Porn Valley and Hollywood Extortionists – America’s Justice System Enables Them to Stalk, Bully and Blackmail YOU! They Also Enable Sex Trafficking of YOUR Daughters!!

Marc Randazza Exploiting Children. Marc Randazza Extortion? "Copyright Troll Lawyers – Meet Porn Valley and Hollywood Extortionists – America’s Justice System Enables Them to Stalk, Bully and Blackmail YOU! They Also Enable Sex Trafficking of YOUR Daughters!!"

Copyright Troll Lawyers – Meet Porn Valley and Hollywood Extortionists – America’s Justice System Enables Them to Stalk, Bully and Blackmail YOU! They Also Enable Sex Trafficking of YOUR Daughters!!

"EDITORIAL:  Our American judicial system has given these criminal attorneys full access to the World’s Internet information so that they can threaten, harass, stalk, bully and EXTORT money from any average person who has visited their sleazy clients sites and downloaded a video THE CLIENTS THEMSELVES MOST LIKELY UPLOADED. I reported on this a long time ago. Porn Valley owns ALL the piracy sites so they sue themselves to get permission to use the information they’ve illegally data mined. They have set the World up big time with this international scam!!

We have all witnessed the truth about these porn tube sites that are accused of piracy and exactly where they are getting YOUR personal information from. They own these sites and they already have your information. They’ve been illegally data mining for years now. What they needed was the ability to use it to run one of their usual scams on the unsuspecting public without criminal reprisals. AMERICA’S COURT SYSTEM did just that when they told them they could go after you for using their piracy of their own content.

Is one of these trolls your attorney?? Does he live in your neighborhood?? Is he someone you know or that has access to your children??

If so, please be advised that most of these snake oil attorneys are nothing more than criminals helping criminals extort hardworking American’s money after luring innocent people to their sites and offering free content. These COURT SANCTIONED TROLLS are working for some of the WORST sex traffickers, pedophiles and sexual predators IN THE WORLD!! They are working for ORGANIZED CRIME, you know, the MOB!!

BEWARE of letting your children anywhere near the following people. You have no idea who they really are and who else they may  expose your children to. Your children could end up kidnapped and working as sex slaves in Porn Valley or Hollywood. We believe they may be kidnapping them young and keeping them hidden in locked places until they get old enough to pass for 18. Then they give them plastic surgery to alter their looks, obtain a fake ID and documentation (costs $250 in Porn Valley) and you have ready made pornstars who were groomed from childhood and have no idea what reality is or what their prior lives were.  It’s happening everyday in Porn Valley, Hollywood and The New World Order and obviously, our justice system isn’t going to stop them because THEY ARE A PART OF THEM!!

God help us all!! (and pray for me and mine for even posting this)

http://anonsofliberty.wordpress.com/copyright-troll-lawyers/

Marc Randazza – VERIFIED PV ATTY AND EMPLOYS STALKERS

Neil H. Rubin

Evan F. Stone-VERIFIED PV ATTY

Jonathan E. Moskin

Peter J. Korneffel Jr.

Michael W. Fattorosi – VERIFIED CYBERSTALKER & PV ATTY

Ira M. Siegel -

John Britton Payne

Brian C. Roche

 Aaron Y. Silverstein

 Raphael J. Whitford

 Douglas M. Mcintyre

 Brett Langdon Gibbs

 Charles C Maddox

 Jason Allan Fischer

 Kenneth John Ford

  David Ludwig

 Nicholas A. Kurtz

 D. Gill Sperlein

 Donald Melvin Gindy

 Jason Auron Kotzker

 Samantha H. Evans-How Could You??

 Ignatius A. Grande

 Adam M. Silverstein

 Alexander O. Lian

 Paul R Hansmeier

 Jon Alexander Hoppe

 Jerald J Bonifield

 Jon E Rosenstengl

 Timothy V. Anderson

 Andrew Contiguglia

 Bonnie C. Park-Unbelievable

 Jay R. McDaniel

 Aman “Tip” Barber, III

 Christopher P Fiore

 Dan Grubb

 Ellis L. Bennett

 James C. White

 Jeff Simpson

 Jeff Weaver

 John Steele

   Paul Hansmeier

 Peter Hansmeier

 Tom Dunlap

"

Source of This Marc Randazza Extortion Post

http://foxxmediagroup.com/copyright-troll-lawyers-meet-porn-valley-and-hollywood-extorntionists-americas-justice-system-enables-them-to-stalk-bully-and-blackmail-you/

CounterDefendant Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group SAYS "there was no attorney-client relationship with Counterclaimant" (Blogger Crystal Cox)

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group SAYS;

"there was no attorney-client relationship with Counterclaimant, no contract existed for representation of Counterclaimant, and Counterdefendant had not committed to the representation of Counterclaimant. "

Source
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.220.0.pdf
(Page 3)

So if there was "no attorney-client relationship" then on what authority did Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group act in telling Eugene Volokh that a settlement was best for Cox, that he would "bow out", or offer a co-counseling relationship?

If there was "no attorney-client relationship" then on what authority did Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group negotiate a "settlement" with opposing counsel that he decided was in my best interest?

If there was "no attorney-client relationship" then on what authority did Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group tell other First Amendment Attorneys that he represented me, and pretty much had it handled, so they would not contact me to represent me?

If there was "no attorney-client relationship" then on what authority did Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group take it upon himself to try and reword a court opinion or something action to change my ruling in a way that would benefit his present and future clients, mostly in the Porn Industry?

If there was "no attorney-client relationship" then on what authority did Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group tell Eugene Volokh that he indeed was my attorney in this matter, then offer that possibly Eugene Volokh could co-counsel?

So Randazza says he was not my attorney and had "no attorney-client relationship" yet he made all these actions, discussions, offers, negotiations on "my behalf", REALLY?  And that is not a violation of law or constitutional rights in any way?

So CLEARLY Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group did represent me, Crystal Cox.

Then after this REPRESENTATION when I fired him for lying, being a pompass ass, violating my constitutional rights, berating me, talking a deal behind my back, lying about what I wanted the outcome to be and other reasons then he used his legal knowledge, my proprietary information, my legal strategy, my private information and information he gained through representation; to defame me, harass me, bully me, intimidate me, ruin my quality of life and he used his media connections to accuse me of crimes in which I had no adjudication or due process on in any way and simply ruined my life, attacked me, violated my privacy rights, harassed and violated the rights of my sources, sued me and my sources, and engaged in conspiracy with a large amount of legal bloggers, lawyers, investigators, online media, NPR, Forbes, and even Judges.


After this Clear REPRESENTATION, Marc Randazza sued my sources that were reporting on him such as Monica Foster aKa Alexandra Mayers and Desi Foxx aKa Diana Grandmason, he violated there and my privacy rights along with Inventor Eliot Bernstein. Randazza got my phone records, travel information, bank information, home address, names and contacts of customers and clients, information on all my domain names and intellectual property, information on my church mission, wire information, personal private information and contacts and put this in the public domain in legal cases and media to further harass and attack me. All this and he was MY ATTORNEY.

He even bullied, harassed and threatened my friends, clients, ex's, customers, church, insiders, sources and others to get information about me and put fear and intimidation into them.

Marc Randazza DID have and  attorney-client relationship with Counterclaimant" (Blogger Crystal Cox) AND he clearly abused his power and privilege as an officer of the courts and the legal process. As well as used his CLOUT as an attorney to DESTROY my life knowingly with willful and wanton, clear intent in a clear abuse of power and process over a former client.

More on this Topic of Did Marc Randazza Represent Crystal Cox as her attorney or NOT?

http://investigativeblogger.blogspot.com/2014/12/marc-randazza-again-admits-to-have-been.html

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