Nevada Law Attorney - BAR PDF

NevadaBarComplaint
ComplainingParty:CrystalL.Cox
Phone:4066249510
eMailSavvyBroker@yahoo.com
P.OBox2027
PortTownsend,WA98368
NameofAttorney:MarcJ.Randazza
LawFirm:RandazzaLegalGroup
BarNumber12265
PhoneNumber:7024202001
3625S.TownCenterDr.
LasVegas,NV89135
HowMarcRandazzacametobemyattorney
OnoraboutDecember10th,2011,
oneoftheBloggersonmyIndependentBlog
Network,contactedmeregardinghiscontactinganattorneynamedMarcRandazza.
(SeeExhibit18).Beforethis,IhadneverheardofMarcRandazza.
Ihadjustlostamajorfreespeechcase(ObsidianFinanceGroupvs.Cox),on
November28th,2011andexpressedthatIintendedtoappealtotheNinthCircuit.The
bloggerthoughtMarcRandazzawouldbeagoodfitandmayrepresentmeforFreeon
myNinthCircuitappeal,ashehadjusthadsomeTSAcaseinthemediaandseemed
tobeveryproFreeSpeechrightsforallcitizens.
Iagreedtohavea3wayphoneconversationregardingthepossibilityofmeagreeingto
allowMr.Randazzatorepresentme,inwhathadquicklybecomeahighprofileFirst
AmendmentCasethataffectedtherightsofallcitizens,bloggers,whistleblowers,and
citizenjournalists.
1

OnDecember6th,2011
IhadpreviouslyspoketoUCLALawProfessorEugene
Volokh.HecalledmeandaskedifhecouldrepresentmeonmyAppealofObsidian
FinanceGroupv.CrystalCoxandwithabsolutelynocosttome.Iagreedthathecould
representme.
EugeneVolokhisalawprofessoranddoesnotpracticelawregularly.Sohehadtoget
thefinalapprovalofthelawfirmMayerBrownLLP.ThereforeIhadnothadfirm
representationyetfromhimwhenIspokewithMarcRandazza.Andwasopentoboth
oreitherofthemrepresentingmeonmyNinthCircuitAppeal,atthattime.
DiscussiononthatFirstCall
OnmyrepresentationconferencecallwithMarcRandazza,wediscussedmystrategy
formyappeal,aswellasmystrengthsandweaknessesandwhatIwaswillingtodo
andnotwillingtodo.
RandazzatoldmeIhadmadeamessofthecaseandhewouldhavetolookoverall
thedocumentationtodecideifhewouldbeabletotakemycase.Randazzatoldme
thatBigMediahadamonopolyonFreeSpeechandthatisjustthewayitis.
Randazzaattemptedtogetmetonotappeal,bytellingmeitwasbestforallofsocietyif
Ididnotappeal.Randazzaaskedmemystrategy,whatIwasopentoinmoving
forward,andwhatIwasnot.Hequestionedmeonmanyaspectsofmyintentionsfor
myappeal.
RandazzatoldmethatherepresentedtheMediaAssociationforBloggersandmay
haveaconflictofinterestinrepresentingme,andthathewouldgetbacktomeafterI
gavehimallofthedocumentsofmycaseandhecheckedwiththem.
AttorneyMarcRandazzaRepresentationofCox
AsExhibit19shows
,on
December14th,2011
Randazzaconfirmedhisrepresentation
ofme,CrystalCox
.
AtthistimeRandazzahadalreadybeganrepresentation,hespoketotheoppositionin
myObsidiancase.Hehadalreadyputintimeandmaterial,hehadtriedtobrokera
dealofwhichIhadnoideaofthedetails,andhewasdiscussinghisrepresentationwith
otherFirstAmendmentattorneys.Healsotoldtheseattorneyshewasrepresentingme
onappealbeforethisdate.
OnDecember15th,2011
,
AsExhibit20shows,myattorneysMarcRandazzaand
EugeneVolokhwereworkingwith,andkeepingmeintheloopontheirrepresentationof
meandthecasestrategy
movingforward.Theywerediscussingorderingcourt
documentsfilingamotionforanewtrial,andhadphonecallsdiscussion,aswellas
emailcommunicationonhowtobestmoveforwardwithmycase.Theywereboth
representingmeatthattimeandintalksaboutthecasewiththecourts,otherattorney
andme,astherecordshows.
Thereafter,itcametomyattentionthatRandazzahadcontactedOregonattorneyDavid
Aman,theoppositioninmyObsidiancase,andhadbeennegotiating(brokering)adeal
thatwouldstopmyappealandsomehowchangethestatusofthejudgement.
Eugene
Volokhtoldmethisinaphonecallandinemails
of
Dec.15th,2011
,inExhibit1
.
AlsoinExhibit1andthatphonecallEugeneVolokhtoldmethatRandazzawas
discussing,withotherFirstAmendmentbarattorneysthatherepresentedmeandwas
tryingtobrokeradeal.
Ihadnoknowledgeofthedetailsofthisnegotiation,noranytermsofitandRandazza
didnothavemypermissiontopresentadealofanykindyet.Especiallyonewithoutme
knowingthedetail.
Therefore,atthistime,IdecidedtoFireMarcRandazzaspecificallyonthegrounds
thathewaspresenting(brokering)deals,discussingmotionstobefiled,andpresenting
optionstotheoppositioninmycasewithtotaldisregardforwhatIwanted,myneeds,or
3
keepingmeinformedonthedetailsofthosedeal/negotiationsthatfullyaffectedme.
Andtreatingmewithcompletedisrespect.
AsseeninExhibit21
,On
December16th2011
at
9:21am
,IfiredattorneyMarch
Randazza.ItoldhimhedoesnotrepresentmeandthatonlyEugeneVolokhrepresents
me,fromthismoment.
IwouldhavekeptRandazzaonwithVolokhhadhenotliedtome,beratedme,and
presenteddealstotheoppositionwithoutmypermissionorknowledgeofwhatthey
were,inmy$2.5milliondollarjudgmentandtheappealcase.
Randazzaretaliatedagainstmeplainandsimple,and
Exhibit21
provesthathedidso
withintent,maliciouslyandafterclaiming,offeringtobeofanykindofhelp.
AlsoseeninExhibit21
,
OnDecember16th2011at12:55PM
Randazzasayshehas
noissuewithmedoingthatandofferstohelpmeinthefutureinanywayhecan.
Exhibit21
showsthatMarcRandazzaclaimstorespectsme,apologizedifIfeltnot
treatedwellandsaidthefollowing:"Peoplelikeyouareimportantforthefutureof
citizenjournalism,andIwishtoseeyousucceed."
OverviewofmyGrievance
MybasiccomplaintisthatamanIthoughtwasmyattorney,whomIgaveprivate
information,strategy,andsharedmystrengthsandweaknesseswith,usedallIgave
himagainstmetoattempttobrokeradealthatwasnotinmybestinterest,butinthe
interestofhispornclients.
AllwithtotaldisregardforwhatIwantedandhadexpressedtohimweremywantcase
goals.Randazzaviolatedmyconstitutionalrights,myrightsasalitigant,andtreatedme
extremedisrespect.
4

Ifiredthisattorneywhohadtalkeddowntome,liedtome,misrepresentedme,gave
awaymysecretsandstrategies,triedtotrickmeintonotappealingmy$2.5million
dollarjudgementandtriedtobrokeradealwithoutmyknowledgeorconsent,and
againstmybestinterest.
Exhibit21showsRandazzaadmittingtobrokeringadeal,allegedlyonmybehalf,he
saidthis:,"IdidtelltheopposingcounselthatIthoughtadealmightbebrokered"
.
AfterIfiredhimon
OnDecember16th2011,
andheemailedmeandsaidtolethim
knowifhecouldhelpmeinanyway,evenifinthebackground.Icontinuedmycase
withEugeneVolokh.
ThenonJanuary16,2012,
takingmy
formerattorneyathiswordofofferinghelp,in
anyway,evenifinthebackground,Iemailedhimaskingforajoborajob
recommendation.Heemailedmebackandattackedme,asseeninExhibits.Andeven
thoughhisreturnemailclearlyshowedhimupset,hesaidhedidknowIwasaskingfor
ajob.However,afterthis,heusedapartoftheemailthread,gaveittothemedia,as
wellaslegalbloggers,andinternationalreviewboards,andthenmultiplecourts,and
paintedme,hisformerclientouttobeacriminal.
Hedidnotfileacriminalcomplaint,yetusedhismediaandlegalconnectionstopaint
measguiltyforthecrimeofextortion.Heviolatedmy.rightsofdueprocess,my
constitutionalrights,andhedeliberately,withfullknowledgeofitbeingfalse,defamed
meandmadefalsestatementstothirdpartiesaroundtheworld.IncludingNPR,Forbes,
theNewYorkTimes,LegalandFraudExperts,WIPO(internationalpublications,
domainnamesandintellectualpropertylaw),andheusedhisknowledgeofFirst
AmendmentLaw,andhisconnectiontolegalbloggersandbigandsmallmediatopaint
meoutasacriminalworldwide.
Itismybelief,thatRandazzaowedmeadutytokeepmyemailprivateandtonotdo
anythingadversetomywellbeing.Hehasnowembarkedona3yearcampaignto
harassme,intimidateme,sueme,lietocourtsandmediaaboutme,andflatoutruin
mylife,family,relationships,reputationandqualityoflife.
Ireliedonwhatmyformerattorneysaidaboutmycase,mybestinterest,moving
forward,andthathewouldfollowthroughwithwhatwasmywishesandofmybest
good.Ireliedonmyformerattorneyswordofferinghelptomeevenifinthe
background.YetwhenIemailedhim,takinghimuponthatoffer.Hetookthatprivate
emailandgaveittolegalbloggers,courts,WIPOandtobigandsmallmedia
widespread,paintingmeinfalselight,lyingaboutmeKNOWINGwhatthetruthwasand
hassinceruinedmylife.
Itookmyformerattorney,whoclaimedtohumblyrespectme,apologized,saying
peoplelikemewereneed,athisword.ItrulybelievedthatRandazzawassincerein
lettinghimknowifhecouldhelpme,eveninthebackground.Ihadlostmyhome,lost
myincomeandneededajob,thiswasthehelpItrulyneeded.IsimplyaskedRandazza
ifheknewanyoneorwouldhiremeforPRworkandhemaliciously,deliberatelyand
knowingthetruthpaintedtotheworldthatIhadextortedhimandthatIandiViewit
InventorEliotBernsteinwerefelony,criminalextortionist,asamatteroffact.Knowing
fullwellthathedidnotbelievethis,hesimplywanttoteachmealesson,intimidateme
retaliateagainstme,punishmefornotdoingashetoldmeandchoosinghimasmy
lawyerinmylandmarkruling,andruinmylifepurposelywithwillfulwantonintent.
IreliedonthelegaladviceofMarcRandazza.
Randazza,myformerattorneyobstructedmyjustice,violatedmydueprocessrights
andmyconstitutionalrights.MarcRandazzawasnegligentinhislegalrepresentation
ofme,CrystalCoxandseverelynegligentinhisdutyofcare,ethicsandactionstoharm
meforyearsaftermyappeal,whereherepresentedme.Thisnegligencecauseme
injury,defamedme,causedmeirreparableharm,renderedmyhomeless,penniless
andincitedwordwidehate.
Alawyershallusetacticsthatarelegal,honestandrespectfulofcourtsandyet
Randazzadeliberatelyliedtothecourtstopaintmeinfalselight,toruinmylifeand
business,andtoseveremyfamilyandbusinessconnections.Heusedhisclout,legal
knowledgeandcredibilitytoabuseme,violatemydueprocessrights,violatemy
constitutionalrightsandcompletelydestroymylife,business,reputationandpersonal
relationswithdeliberateintentandfullknowledgeofwhathewasportrayingaboutme
wasnottrue.Hehimselfdidnotevenbeliefit,asExhibit17clearlyshows,heknewI
wasONLYaskingforajob,andsaidhedidnotmindthat.
Alawyershallactwithintegrityandprofessionalism,maintaininghisoverarching
responsibilitytoensurecivilconduct.YetRandazzaclearlydidnotdothis.
Alawyer'sdutytothecourtrelatestohisstatusasaprofessionalwhoserves,notonly
clients,potentialclientsandformerclientsbutalsothepublicinterest.Historically,a
professionalwasdistinguishedfromatradespersonbyapublicdeclaration
demonstratedtodaybytheoathtakenatadmissiontotheBartoserveothersand
devotetheirintellectandeffortstothepublicgood.MarcRandazzaclearlyfailedinhis
dutytome,thecourtandthepublic.
Alawyer'sdutytothecourtalsorelatestotheprofession'sindependence,orwhat
hasbeendescribedas"thehighdegreeofautonomythatlawyersexperiencefrom
externalcontrolsotherthanthoseimposedbyselfregulation."Selfregulationisa
privilegethatcomeswithsubstantialobligationsthatareintendedtoprotecttherightsof
individuals.
Randazzaclearlyhasnotmaintainedintegrityasanofficerofthecourt,butinsteadhas
usedhispowerinthecourtstoretaliateagainstthosewhomhehasapersonalissue
withorthosewhoexercisetheirFreeSpeechrightsandspeakcriticalofhimorhiswife,
asisourFirstAmendmentRight.
Hehasusedthepowerthecourtshavegivehimtoissuefalsesubpoena,scareand
bulLypeopleintogivingprivileged,privateinformation,andtofilelegalactionstouse
money,reputationandothertacticstoforcethosehesues,litigants(targets)intotaking
7
whateveractionheistryingtoforcetheminto,beitasettlement,removinggripesites,
takingdownparodyorgraphicsthatpokefunathim,reportonhiscasesrepresenting
thepornindustryorreallyanythinghedisapprovesof.
Thedutytothecourtisalsoimportantbecausethereareconsequencesforlawyers
whodonotupholdit.Thisisdemonstratedbythepenaltiesattachedtocivilandcriminal
contempt.Yetforsomereason,thecourtsseemtoprotectMarcRandazzathoughthe
clearly,andinpatternandhistoryacrossmanystates,doesthissamethingtovictim
aftervictimandhasmanagedtonothavecontemptchargesagainsthim,thoughIhave
toldthecourtsoverandoverwhatthisattorneyhasdonetomeandtoothersinwhichI
personallyknowof.
Alawyerhasadutytousetacticsthatarelegal,honestandrespectful.Thisduty
isoftenreferredtoasthedutyofcandour.Underthisumbrellaofalawyer'sdutytothe
court,lawyersareprimarilyresponsibleforensuringthattheydonotemploystrategies
thatwillmisleadthecourtthisincludesmisleadingthecourtonevidentiaryandlegal
pointsaswellasmakinguseoftacticalstrategiesthatarelikelytoaffectacase.
YetRandazzadeliberategavemanycourts,media,legalbloggers,NPR,Forbes,New
YorkTimes,WIPOandmore,falseinformation,falseswornstatementoffactsandhe
deliberatelygavethecourtsfalseinformationregardingme,hisformerclientanddidso
inhiswife'scasethroughhislawfirm,againstpornindustrywhistleblowerAlexandra
Mayers.Randazzarepeatedlymisleadsthecourtandflatoutliestothecourtabouthis
targets.Hethenusestheseliesinmediatoforcesettlements,ruinlives,setpeopleup
forcrimesandputthemundermassive,endlessstalking,harassmentandstress.
Randazzasubmittedfalseevidencetothecourtsregardingme.HedidthisinRandazza
v.CoxintheDistrictofNevada,hedidthisinWIPOstatements,inCZECHcourt
statements,hedidthistobigandsmallmedia,inlegalpublicationsandonNational
Radio.
MarcRandazzadeliberatelymisledthecourtsonlaws,suchastheTROthatstolemy
intellectualpropertyandotherlawsinRandazzav.Cox.Thisisunlawful,
unconstitutionalandunethical.
Lawyersmustrespectthecourt.Respectcomesinallformspreparednessand
timelinessareoneaspectofconsideration.Beingfamiliarwiththefactsandlaw
applicabletoyourcase,andknowingyourclient'spositionisthemostfundamental
displayofrespectforthecourtprocess.Thisdutytothecourtis,ineffect,an
overlappingdutyofcompetencywehavetotheclient.Alawyershouldnotabusethe
courtprocess.Alawyershouldnotunreasonablyraiseordefendanactionforwhich
thereisnolegaljustification.
Randazzasuedmetobully,intimidateandsuppressmyspeech.Heshouldnothave
abusedthecourtprocesswithnoreallegaljustification,yethedid.
Randazzaknewmypositioninmyappeal,yetwentagainstmywishesandbehindmy
backtostrikeadealthatwouldbegoodforthefutureandatthattimecurrentcasesof
hisotherclients,thelargeporncompaniesherepresented.Withthishecompletely
violatedmyrightsofduesprocessanddutiesowedtomeashisformerclient,potential
client,orcurrentclient.
AttorneyMarcRandazzaclearlydisrespectedthecourtprocessand,inhisarrogance
anddisrespectofthecourtandthelaws,completelyviolatedmyrightsasaformer
client,alitigantandaU.S.citizen.
Whendealingwithothers,alawyershallbecourteous,civilandactingoodfaithwithall
personswithwhomhedealswithduringthecourseofpractice.YetMarcRandazza
incitedworldwidehateagainstme,filedAmicusBriefs,wentonNPR,filedsworn
statements,spoketobigandsmallmediaandmaliciously,deliberatelywithwillfuland
wantonintentincitedhated,spreaddefamatorymaliciouslies,anddidnotactcivil,not
courteousandNOTingoodfaith.
Alawyer'sdutyofcivilityextendstothoseindividualswhoareintegraltoourlegal
processsuchaswitnesses.YetMarcRandazzathreatened,bullied,sued,and
maliciouslyattackedmychurch,thoseIworkedfor,ex's,thoseIministertoanddidnot
actwithcivilityatall.
MarcRandazzaowedmea''standardofcare''inwhichheclearlybreached.
LegalMalpracticeisabreachbyanattorneyinthestandardofcareorinthestandard
ofconductthatisapplicabletoallattorneys.ClearlyRandazzabreachedhisstandard
ofcarewhenitcomestome,CrystalCox.
DetailsandExplanationofmyGrievance
OnJanuary16,2012
at2:30pmIemailedmyformerattorneyMarcRandazza,and
askedhimifheoranyoneheknewwouldhiremeforPRservices.As,withmycase,I
hadlostmyhome,my,business,mywaytomakemoney,andIwasstruggling.
Randazzahademailedmepriorandtoldmethatpeoplelikemewereimportant,and
thatifhecouldhelpinanyway,evenifonlyinthebackground,tolethimknow.
Exhibit21
showsRandazzasaying,"Despitethecontentsofthisemail,Iwishtoletyou
knowthatIamsillwillingtolendahandinanywayeveninthebackground."
RandazzaemailedmebackanddemandedthatIgivehimadomainnamethathe
thoughtIhadnorighttoown.WhenIrefused,hebecameenraged.
OnJanuary16,2012
2:36PM,RandazzaemailedmeandsaidYouwanttomakean
enemyofme,really?AsExhibit17clearlyshows.
OnJan17,2012at6:52AM
,MarcRandazzaemailedme,asseeninExhibit17and
expressedhisfrustrationwithme,hisanger,andthefactthathedidnotmindmeasking
forajob.WhichshowsheclearlyknewandfullybelievedthatIwasaskingforajob.
10
Yet,hegaveapartofthisemailthreadtoKennethP.White,attorneyandlegalblogger
atPopehat.com,heleakedittoForbes,NPR,theNewYorkTimesandclaimeditwas
thecrimeofExtortion.Myformerattorney,wassovengefulhethencontactedthe
oppositionandofferedtogiveinformationaboutmetohelpthemwintheircase
AGAINSTME.Allthiswithtotaldisregardformyrightsashisclient,formerclientorhis
potentialclient.
OnMarch7th,2012,
myformerattorneyMarcRandazzacontactedTonkonTorpLaw
Firm,theOppositioninmyObsidiancaseandheofferedtogivetestimonythatwould
setmeupforthecrimeofExtortionandtherebyhelpthemtowintheNinthCircuit
appeal.
Clearly,thiswasunethical,unlawfulandunconstitutional.Thisviolatedmyrightsasa
formerclient,andwithtotaldisregardformyrightsasalitigantinthecase,acaseof
whichhehadmyinsideinformation,mysecrets,mystrategyandhadnegotiatedonmy
behalf.
Randazzainitiatedandwasplanningongivingadepositionagainstme,aclienthehad
representedinthatsamecase.
Approx.March30th,2012,
MarcRandazzabeganpublishingfalseanddefamatory
statementsonhislegalblogaccusingmeofhavingablogabouthischild,attackingan
infantandbeinganextortionist.Noneofwhichweretrueinanywaynoradjudicated
fact.
Asnotedabove,Randazzaclearlydidnot,himself,believeIhadtriedtoextorthimbut
wasonlyaskingforajob.Thereforehedeliberately,willfullyandwithmaliciousintent
paintedmeinfalselightonhisblog,andfromtheretomediaaroundtheworld.
OnApril2nd2012,
ForbesReporterKashmirHillbeganpublishingfalseand
defamatorystatementsclaimingthatIhadattackedRandazzaschild,hadablogabout
hischild,andhadextortedRandazza.MyformerattorneytoldFORBES,ahousehold
name,thatIwasacriminal,andhepaintedmeouttobeevil,andthereforeruinedmy
11
life,myrelationships,mybusiness.Andhedidso,ALL,withknowledgeitwasfalseand
withmaliciousintent.
On
April3rd2012,
RandazzaLegalGroupattorney
JordanRushiepublishedfalseand
defamatorystatements,accusingmeofbeingascammer,andextortionistandpainting
meouttobeaverybadpersonwhohadcommittedcrimes.
JordanRushieofRandazzaLegalGroupdidthisinanarticleonPhillyLawBlogTitled
"TheEvolutionofCrystalCox:AnatomyofaScammer",dated,
April3rd2012
.Jordan
RushiepostedfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingCoxbeingguiltyofextortion
andattackingathreeyearold.ThisblogpostisthetopGooglesearchformyname,
andwaspostedwithdeliberateintenttoruinmylife,mybusiness,harmmylegalcase,
pressuremetosettle,stopmyappeal,intimidateme,bullyme,andharassme.
RandazzaLegalGroupattorney
JordanRushiealsohasahateblogagainstmewith
thedomainnameCrystalCox.com.
OnApril6th2012,
BobGarfield,NPRreporterinterviewedmyformerattorneyMarc
RandazzaonNewYorkPublicRadio.TheshowwascalledCOMBATING"BAD"
SPEECHWITHMORESPEECH,Dated,April06,2012.OntheMedia,asExhibits
show.
BobGarfieldandMarcRandazzastatedfalseanddefamatory,slanderousstatements
maliciouslytotheentireworld,inanationallysyndicatedradioshow.Withfull
knowledgeitwasfalseandwithdeliberate,maliciousintenttoharmme.
BobGarfieldandMarcRandazzaaccusedmeofattackingachildonline,ofbeingguilty
ofextortion,andallmannerofunethicalandcriminalactivity.Thesefalseand
defamatorystatementsinthisworldwidemediumofcommunicationhascausedme
immeasurable,irreparabledamage.
12

OnApril14th2012,
myformerattorneyMarcRandazzafiledaProtectiveOrder
AgainstmeintheLasVegasCourts.Ihaveandhadnevermettheman.Hewasthe
oneattacking,threateningandbullyingmeandusinggangsofattorneys,fraud
investigators,bigandsmallmediaandradiotoharass,defameandintimidateme.Yet
hefilesforaprotectiveorderagainstme,hisformerclientofwhichhehaddutiesand
Obligationsto.
OnApril27th,2012,
myformerattorney,MarcRandazzacontinuestointerfereinmy
NinthCircuitcaseandtryandsetmeup,exposesmysecretstotheoppositionand
evenworkswiththemtoattempttoseizemyallegedassetstocovermy$2.5million
dollarjudgement.
Randazzahadnoethical,moral,constitutionalorlawfulreasontobeworkingwiththe
oppositioninmycase,directlyagainstmybestinterest.Hewasmyformerattorney,he
counseledmeinthecase,heworkedonmotions,transcriptordering,negotiationsand
thenheworkswiththeoppositiontocausemeharm.
Randazzahelpedtheopposition,TonkonTorpLawyerDavidAmantohelpthem
attempttoseizedomainnames,RandazzarecommendsreceiverLaraPearson,ashe
hadpreviouslyusedherintheRighthavencaseoutofNevada.Myformerattorneythat
wasunderoathtoactinmybestinterested,advisedtheOppositionsattorneyDavid
AmantouseLaraPearsonasareceivertocomeformyallegedassets.Therewasno
otherwayanOregonattorneywouldhavechosethisexactperson.Randazza
continuedhiscampaigntoharmme.
Randazzacontinued
totelllegalbloggers,lawfirms,reporters,radioandmorethatI
hadextortedhimandharmedhischild,hisfamily.Hedidsowithfullknowledgeofit
beingfalse.
OnMay11th2012,
theOppositioninthecaseObsidianFinanceGroupv.CrystalCox
13
outoftheDistrictofOregon,filedamultimilliondollarlegalactionagainstEliot
Bernstein.EliotBernsteinhadnotbeenadefendantinthatcase,wasnotnamed
anywhereinthatcase,andthejuryhadhappened6monthspriorandfoundCoxliable
for$2.5millionatthattime.Thislawsuitwasfiledasanaddendumto
Districtof
Oregon3:11cv00057HZ
,DocketEntry136138.Themotion/lawsuitwasdenied,
howeverfromthatmomentonEliotBernsteinwasnamedonthedocketasadefendant
inthecaseandashavinga$2.5milliondollarjudgementagainsthim,clearlydefaming
him,harminghismultibilliondollartechnologyactionsandcausinghimharassment,
stressandendangermenttohimandhisfamily.
ThislegalactionwasduetoMarcRandazzasaccusationsagainstCoxandBernstein
andleadingtheoppositionintheObsidiancasetobelievethatwehadextortedhimand
wehadassetsthattheOppositioncouldcomefor.Randazzacreatedthisand
counseledtheoppositioninthiscaseonthesematters.
OnJun18th2012,
MarcRandazzafiledaCzechcourtcomplaintagainstmeandEliot
Bernstein,whoinventediViewit,avideotechnologythatthepornindustryuses,and
someonewhoIhavebeenreportingonforover5years.
Thiscomplaintwastoinitiateadomainnamedispute.Inthiscase,MarcRandazza
statedfalseanddefamatorystatementsandclaimedthatIandEliotBernsteinhad
extortedhim.Hepaintedme,hisformerclient,infalselightandhedruginotherswhom
Ihadreportedon.
MarcRandazzausedthearticlesandblogsofForbesKashmirHill,attorneyJordan
RushieandNewYorkTimesreporterDavidCarrsfalseanddefamatorystatementsas
hisevidencetostealtheintellectualproperty.Eventhoughhehimselfhadcreatedthat
allegedevidencebytellingthemflatoutlies,knowingfullwelltheywereliesabouthis
formerclient,andeventhoughtheyarehearsay.
Essentiallyusinghisowninterviewswiththemaspurportedandbelievedevidence,
thoughitwasfalseanddefamatorystatementsoffactwithwillful,wanton,deliberate
andmaliciousintent.
14

OnJuly27th2012,
MarcRandazzafiledaWIPO(WorldIntellectualProperty
Organization)complaintoutofSwitzerlandagainstmeandEliotBernstein,toinitiatea
domainnamedispute
.
Inthiscase,MarcRandazzastatedfalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdparty
concerningme.HeagainusedForbesKashmirHill,JordanRushieandDavidCarrs
falseanddefamatorystatements,hearsay,ashisevidencetostealmyintellectual
property.
Clearlyknowingitwasfalse,MarcRandazzastatedinswornstatementstoWIPOthat
CrystalCoxandEliotBernsteinwereguiltyofExtortionandhadalsoextortedhim
personally,yetattorneyMarcRandazzahadfilednocriminalchargesagainsteitherof
usnorwasIgivendueprocessoflawintheseveryseriousallegations,thatmyformer
attorneysworethatIwasguiltofandhadparticipatedin,accordingtohim,asamatter
offact.
AstherecordshowsBigandSmallMediaaswellasattorneybloggers,radioshows,
internationalintellectualpropertylaw,legalpublications,theassociatedpress,smalland
largebloggersandpublishersandmorepickedupthestoryorweredirectlytoldby
Randazzafalseanddefamatorystatementsandtoldtoposthisversionofthefacts,
which,asExhibitsshow,wereclearlyfalseanddefamatoryandwithfullknowledgeof
thelawandtheirfalsehood.
OnNovember28th,2012,
MyformerattorneyMarcRandazzafiledaTrademarkclaim
againstmeintheDistrictofNevada.
Case
2:12cv02040JADPAL
,
inordertosteal
massiveonlinecontent,domainnamesandblogsandtochillmyonlinespeechthat
spokecriticalofhim,reviewedhimandhislawfirmanddiscussedwhathehaddoneto
meandtootherswhohavebythencontactedme.
MarcRandazzzaclaimedthatIhadviolatedhisTrademarkwithmyGripesites
complainingabouthowhehadtreatedme,gripingabouthim,andmakingfunofhim
andhislawfirm.
OnDecember14th,2012,
JudgeGloriaNavarroGRANTEDRandazzas
15
ExParteMotionforTemporaryRestrainingOrderandMotionforPreliminaryInjunction
andgavehimmyintellectualproperty,mygripesites,withNOfirstamendment
adjudicationwhatsoever.Theysimplystrippedmyrightsofdueprocessand
constitutionalrights.
JudgeGloriaNavarrousedthehearsayevidencethatMarcRandazzagavehertomake
thisruling.AndthatevidencewastheJordanRushieblog,Forbesandotherlegalblogs
thathehimselfhadtoldpersonallythatIwasguiltyofextortion,andhadattackedhis
infantchild.AndtheWIPOruling,containinghisflatout(sworn)liesthatI,andEliot
Bernsteinwerecriminalextortionistsandhadcausedhimpersonalharm.
JudgeGloriaNavarrousedthisnonadjudicatedhearsayasadjudicatedfactual
evidenceandseizedmassiveblogs,domainnames,andonlinecontentofwhichgave
Randazzatopsearchengineplacement.Withtotaldisregardformyrights.
JudgeGloriaNavarroalsoruledthatthedomainnameserversbeallowedtobe
changedandthedomainsgiventoRandazzawithoutadjudication.Randazzathenused
allmyblogposts,myhardwork,mydecadesofproprietaryknowledge,andsearch
engineplacementtoredirecttoONEblogpostonRandazzasesteemedlegalblog
attackinganddefamingme,accusingmeofillegalbehaviorandharmingchildren.
MarcRandazzafiledthislegalaction,aSLAPPsuit,againstmeintheDistrictof
Nevada.RandazzasattorneyofrecordinthecasewasRonaldD.GreenofRandazza
LegalGroup.Thisharassingcaseisongoingtothisday.
Randazzafiledthiscasetostiflemyspeech,chillmyspeech,removeblogsthatspoke
criticalofhimandhislawfirmormadefunofhim,stealdomainnamesthathedidnot
wantmetohaveandessential,completelyviolatemyrightsofdueprocessoflaw,my
rightsashisformerclient,myFirstAmendmentRightsandmyFreeSpeechRights.
MarcRandazza,myformerattorneymadesworncourtstatementsthatIhadextorted
himandhegavethesesworn,falseanddefamatorystatementsashisevidenceto
federalcourtwithfullknowledgethattheywerefalse.
Myformerattorney,MarcRandazzadidnotfilecriminalchargeswiththeauthorities.
Nordidhefilechargeswiththeattorneygeneraloranyotherbodyofauthority,
regardinghisallegationsthatIandEliotBernsteinhadextortedhim,wasguiltyof
extortionorhadbeeninANYpriorcasewhereIwasinvestigatedandfoundguiltyofthe
felonycrimeofextortion.
16

InsteadRandazzausedhispowerofthecourtsandlegalknowledgetocausemeand
EliotBernsteinharm,harassanddefameusworldwide.
MarcRandazza,anattorneyoflaw,wouldcertainlyknowhowtofilecriminalcharges.
Yetinstead,MarcRandazzaviolatedtherightsofhisformerclientanddidnotfile
criminalchargesandtherebyallowmedueprocessoflaw.Instead,thiswellknown
attorneyusedworldrenownedmediaoutletssuchasForbes,theNewYorkTimesand
NPR,andaninternational,highlyreputablepublicationputoutbyWIPOashiscourtof
law,judgeandjuryandsimplypronouncedthatIandiViewitInventorEliotBernstein
wasguiltyofthefelonycrimeofextortion.
OnNov.30th2012,
attorneyandcolleagueofMarcRandazza,PeterL.Michaelson,
SoleWIPOPanelist,madehisrulingAGAINSTmeandEliotBernstein,basedSOLELY
onthefalseanddefamatory,deliberate,maliciousliesofmyformerattorneyMarc
Randazza.AndtheevidencehesubmittedtoWIPO,whichwashearsayarticlesin
mediawherehehimselfhadtoldthemthatIandEliotBernsteinwasacriminal
extortionist.
ThisWIPOrulingwaspublishedworldwideinahighlyesteemedintellectualproperty
publicationanddefamedmethoroughlycausingmeirreparableharm.
WIPOthenpublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningme
andiViewitVideoTechnologyInventorEliotBernsteininaWIPOpublication,whichhas
awidespread,internationalreaderbase.
Inthispublication,WIPOpanelist,attorneyPeterL.Michaelsonflatoutaccusedusof
theCrimeofExtortion,withnodueprocessoflawwhatsoever.
AfterattorneyPeterL.Michaelsonsfalseanddefamatorystatementswerepublishedin
anInternationalWIPOcomplaintdecision,MarcRandazzaviahisattorneyRonaldD.
GreenofRandazzaLegalGroup,usedthispublicationasjudicialevidenceinthe
DistrictofNevadacasetoharmmeandBernsteinandflatoutstealourintellectual
property,eventhoughmyformerattorneyMarcRandazzawastheonewhomadethe
StatementstoWIPOinthefirstplace.
AtthispointthestatementsintheWIPOpublicationmadebyDefendantPeterL.
MichaelsonofDefendantWIPOBECAMEofficialevidenceandproofinDefendant
17
RandazzascaseagainstPlaintiffCoxandEliotBernstein(thenDistrictofNevadaCase
2:12cv02040GMNPAL).
Next,JudgeGloriaNavarrousedtheevidence,legalcommentaryandsloughoffalse
anddefamatorystatementsmadebyRandazzaasjustificationtogivemassivedomain
namesandintellectualpropertytoMarcRandazzainapreliminaryinjunction.This
wipedoutthousandsoflinks,wipedoutthesearchenginerankingofmine,deleted
massiveamountsofcontentthatIhadcreatedonline,anddamagedmyintellectual
propertyandonlinemedia.Thisactionbyafederaljudgealsocausedabacklashof
defamation,harassment,retaliationandlossofreputation,clients,friendsandfamily,of
whichhasbeengoingonforover3yearsnowandIhavenowaytorecover.
Ithasrenderedmehomeless,penniless,andwithnowaytorentahome,getclientsor
secureincometosurvive.Myformerattorneypaintedmetotheworldasacriminal,a
scammer,anextortionistandsomeonewhoharmschildren.
Iamananticorruptionbloggeranddefendtherightsofchildrenaswellasallvictimsof
corruption.Randazzaknewthisandsaidpeoplelikemeareneeded,importantandhe
respectedme,thenheturnedrightaroundandpaintedalietotheworldand
deliberately,maliciouslyruinedmylife.Andwithdeliberate,insidepersonalknowledge
thatwhathewassayingwasindeedfalsestatementsoffact.
OnJanuary3,2013
theMultnomahCountySheriffintheStateofOregonhad
scheduledacourthousestepssaleonmyrighttoappealmyNinthCircuitcaseand
therebyrevokemy2.5millionjudgementandalsofollowthroughwiththerulingonthis
importantissueofbloggershavingequalrightsasamatteroflawasmainstreamnews
journalistsandtheinstitutionalpress.
Myappealhadalreadybeenfiledlongbefore.Yettheoppositionhadjustlearnedthat
theymaybeabletoSEIZEmyconstitutionalrighttoappeal,asanassettosatisfythe
IfthisweretohappentherewouldnolongerbeaNinthCircuitCas.Itwasfiledinan
OregoncourtofwhichwasnotconnectedtothelowercourtcaseortheNinthCircuit
case,therebytryingtoslipinanauctionofmyrights,toliterallystealmyrighttoappeal.
Iwasmyownattorneyinthepartofthecasethatdealtwithmyassets,orany
judgementbeingsatisfied.SoIcontactedEugeneVolokh,myNinthCircuitattorney,he
18
thenfiledamotiontoSTAYthesale,filedinthe
DistrictofOregon3:11cv00057HZ
atDocument145.
Wewonthemotiontostayandstoppedthesalejustintime.
Apparentlyitislegaltodothisinsomestatesandnotinothers.
OnFebruary11th,2013
IhadaphoneconversationwithFloridaAttorneyToddLevine.
Iaskedhimaboutproceduressuchasthis.Hetoldmethatitusedtobepopularinthe
StateofFlorida.Thisactionofseizingpeoplesrighttoappealinlieuoftheirdebt/
judgementintheoriginalcase.
Myformerattorney,MarcRandazza,havingbeenaFloridaattorneyforalongtime,and
startinghiscareerthere,hadbeenveryfamiliarwiththisprocess(scheme)inwhich
violatedtheconstitutionalrightsoflitigantstoappealacase.
Randazzahadcounseled,providedinformationtoandbasicallygaveattorneyadviceto
theOppositioninmycasethatwentagainstmybestgood,andtocompletelyshutme
downinmyNinthCircuitappeal.Withtotaldisregardthathehadbeenmycounselprior
tothisandowedmeadutyofethics,noconflictsofinterest,nodisclosureofmy
informationinanyway.
OnFebruary21st,2013,
Docketentry87ofRandazzav.Cox,showsExhibitsofMarc
RandazzaemailingCPA,andSummitBankruptcywhistleblowerStephanieDeYoung
bullyingherintogivinghimDefendantmyfinancialinformation,andanyinformationon
aChurchthatheclaimedIhadstarted.
StephanieDeYoungwasnevermyCPAandIhadnotyetstartedachurchatthistime,
Randazza,actingashisownattorney,attemptedtogetDeYoungtogivemyprivate
financialinformation,threateningtosubpoenaher,sueherandotherbullyingtactics.
OnMay13th2013
,EliotBernsteinfiledamotionregardingfraudonthecourt,and
includedhisbeingharassedbymyformerattorneyMarcRandazza,SeeCaseNumber
1:07cv11196SAS,Bernsteinv.AppellateDivisionFirstDepartment,SouthernDistrict
ofNewYork.Page5681(ExhibitV)
19

OnJanuary17,2014
,NinthCircuitCase:1235238ID:8964107,JudgesArthurL.
Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.Hurwitz,CircuitJudgesaccusedmeof
havingahistoryofpostingthingsonlineandseekingmoneyforaretraction.Theydid
thisinanappealruling,inwhichIwon.My$2.5millionjudgementwasoverturned.I
washeadedbacktothelowercourtprose.TheseJudgesusedaNewYorkTimes
articlebyDavidCarr,whichislegallyhearsay,asadjudicatedfact,andsimplythrewinto
therulingthatIhadahistoryofextortionatebehavior.
Myformerattorneyconspiredwithotherstopaintthispicturetotheworld.TheNew
YorkTimesarticlewasNOTadjudicatedfact,norwasitanypartofthelowercourt
ruling,orcase.YetJudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.
Hurwitzsoughtoutthisarticleandusedit,asevidence,asifadjudicatedfact,and
paintedmeouttobeacriminal,withcompletedenialofdueprocessasIamentitled,as
amatteroflawandconstitutionalrights.MyformerattorneyMarcRandazzamaliciously
paintedmeouttobeabadperson,afelonyextortionateandonewhoattacksinfants.
JudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.Hurwitz,simplyaddinglib,
andthrowingintheseunadjudicatedstatementswasunlawfulandprejudicedmeasI
washeadingbacktothelowercourtProSe.SoIaskedmyNinthCircuitattorney
EugeneVolokhtofileanappealandseekaretractionofthesecriminalallegationsby
anesteemedpanelofhighercourtjudges.
Asanactivistlitigant,Ididnotwantthistohappentootherinvestigativebloggers,
whistleblowers,andcitizenjournalists,soIappealedthroughmyattorney.AsIfeltthis
wasmydutyandobligation.
OnJanuary27th2014,
RandazzaLegalGroup(RLG)issuedasubpoenatoGodaddy,
theNoticeofSubpoenawasDistrictofNevada,andsignedbyLawClerkatRLG,
signaturecannotbemadeout,andnoprintedname.TheactualsubpoenatoGodaddy
said
DistrictofArizona
onthedocuments,andstatedthataC.DeRoseat5131N.
40thSt,A310,PhoenixAZwouldexamineallfinancialdata,electronicallystored
information,billingdata,IPdata,serverdata,allphonenumbers,andcontactofanyone
associatedwithaccountsortothespecifiedpeoplethatRandazzawantedpersonal,
financialandintellectualpropertyinformationontobeexaminedonFeb.7th,2014.
20
TheExhibittothissubpoenawasaDistrictofNevadadocumentstatingfurtherpersona,
private,andfinancialdatathatRLGwascommandingthatGodaddyturnovertothemin
regardtoCrystalCox.
ThisSubpoenagaveRLGaccesstotheprivateandfinancialinformationofporn
industryinsiders,whistleblowerssuchasMonicaFosteraKaAlexandraMayerand
DianaGrandmason,bothexposingRLGandtheirconnectionstoOrganizedCrimeinthe
PornIndustry,prostitutionforcedonpornactors,pedophilesconnectedtoRLGandthe
activitiesoftheFreeSpeechCoalitionandRLGtomovethepornindustrytoLas
Vegas.
ThisSubpoenaalsogaveRLGaccesstotheprivatedataandfinancialinformationof
iViewitinventorEliotBernstein.
OnJanuary27th2014,
RandazzaLegalGroup(RLG)issuedaDistrictofNevada
subpoenatoVerizonWireless,theactualSubpoenaisDistrictofNorthernTexas,this
subpoenacommandsVerizon,thoughKlemchukKubastaLLP8150N.Central
Expressway,10thFloorDallas,TXtobeallowedtoinspectdocumentsrequestedon
February10th,2014.
TheExhibittothesubpoena,aDistrictofNevadadocument
COMMANDING
that
VerizongiveMarcRandazza,Mypersonalprivateinformation,phonenumbers,
personalcalls,businesscalls,billingandpaymentinformation,datathatbreachesthe
privacyofcountlessindividualsandcompanies,lawyers,media,clients,customer,and
myfriends.
ThissubpoenaalsogaveRandazzaaccesstophonenumbersanddataofsources
whomhadtoldCoxofissuesoforganizedcrime,prostitutionandmoreinwhichCox
wasreportingonconnectedtoRLG,theFreeSpeechCoalitionandtheOrganized
CrimeinPorn.Includingdelicateandprivateinformation,texts,phonenumbers,
contactsofthosewhohavebeenthreatenedbyRLGandconnections.
TheSubpoenaalsorequestedallothernumbersontheaccounttherebyunjustlydata
miningCoxsfamily,friend,businesspartners,andpersonalrelationships.
TheSubpoenaalsoallowedRandazzatoaccesswhomayhelpCoxpayherbills,or
helphertohaveaphone.AsCoxhasnomoney,nohomeandispennilessduetothe
relentlessactionsofCox.Thiscompromisestheprivateinformationofthosehelping
21
Coxtohavealifeline,aphone.ThiscouldalsogiveRLGaccesstowhereCoxis
locatedatalltimesandasCoxhasstatedmanytimestothecourts,mylifeisinand
hadbeenindanger,underconstantduressandthreatsbythoseinthepornindustry
connectedtoRandazzaandthisispotentiallylifeordeathtoCoxandhersources.
CoxclaimsRandazzaissuedafalseinstrument,impersonatedaSubpoenaandhas
causedCoxandthoseconnectedtoherirreparableharm.
RandazzausedhisroleinthiscaseandasanofficerofthecourttogetpeopleinCoxslifeto
givehimprivateinformationinwhichheused,nottowinthiscase,buttosetCoxupforthe
crimeofextortion,andtobroadcastwhathefoundsuchasprivatechurchtrips,moneyCoxgot
inhandouts,andusedhispowertoexposeCoxspersonallife,homeaddress,phonenumber,
clients,thosesheministerstoandhersourcesinsidethepornindustry.
RandazzagotsubpoenastogetpersonalinformationofDianaGrandmason,certifiedhuman
traffickingvictimandMonicaFoster,adultindustryinsiderandinvestigativeblogger,thishad
nothingtodowiththelanhamact,trademarkorthemeritsofthiscase.
OnJanuary31st2014
CoxAppealedherNinthCircuitCaseWin:ID:8961401Docket
Entry:48,JudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.Hurwitzhad
accusedCoxofhavingahistoryofextortionatebehaviorinaNinthCircuitruling.This
wasnotadjudicatedfactnorapartoftheObsidianv.Coxcaseorappeal.Judges
ArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.HurwitzsimplyusedaNinth
CircuitrulingtopaintCoxasacriminaltotheworld.
ThiscasefilingsoughtaretractionofthewordsinwhichweretakenfromNewYork
Timesarticle,whichwashearsayandstatedthatIhadahistoryofpostingonlineand
thenseekingaretraction.OfwhichIhadnohistorywhatsoeverbeforethiscasepainted
meinthatfalselight,withdeliberate,maliciousintention.
ThiscasefilingENRAGED
myformerattorneyMarcRandazza.AshisWIPOcase,his
caseintheDistrictofNevadaagainstme,hisinterviewswithNPR,theNewYorkTimes
andForbesandhisstatementstomanylegalbloggersandmultiplemediawouldallbe
22
discreditedifthejudgesretractedthisdefamatorystatementthathadNOrelevanceto
thecase.
Somyformerattorney,wholegally,morally,constitutionallyandethicallywasswornto
NOTseekthatiswhichinoppositionofmybestinterest,filedahateful,rageful,
accusatory,defamatoryAmicusBrieftotheNinthCircuitAGAINSTme.
OnFebruary3rd2014,
MarcRandazzaCox'sfiled,ObsidianFinanceGroup,LLCv.
CrystalCox:
BriefofAmicusCuriae,NinthCircuitCase:1235238ID:8964107Dkt
Entry:493
.
ItisunconstitutionalandunethicalforRandazzatofilecourtmotionssuchasthis,in
directoppositiontothebestinterestofhisformerclient.Notonlythat,heliedunderoath
regardingme,hisformerclient.Knowingfullwellitwasfalse,Randazzaaccusedmeof
extortinghim,whenclearlytheemailatExhibit17showsthatheknewIwasaskingfor
ajob.Randazzadidthismaliciouslytoinfluenceahighercourtrulingandtofurtherruin
anddefameCrystalCox.
MarcRandazzausedtheNinthCircuitcourtsinafraudonthecourtactions,whereby
hedeliberatelyliedandmisledhighercourtJudgestoinfluencethemtoaccusemeof
criminalactivityofwhichIhadneverbeenunderinvestigationfororadjudicatedfor.
OnFebruary26th,2014,MartinCain,
anotherpersonIhadpreviouslyreportedon,
filed
:
BRIEFOFAMICUSCURIAEMARTINCAIN,NinthCircuitCase:Case:1235238
ID:8994409DocketEntry:551.TheAttorneywhofiledthisbriefwassoughtoutforand
paidforbyMarcRandazza.
ThisAmicusBriefwasfiledby:
AllanB.Gelbard,Esq.
LawOfficesofAllanB.Gelbard
15760VenturaBlvd.,Suite801
Encino,CA91436
AllanB.GelbardisacolleagueofRandazzaandwassecuredandpaidforbyMarc
Randazzahimself.ThiswasindirectviolationofmyrightsasRandazzasformerclient.
23
OnoraboutMarch5th2014,
MarcRandazza,myformerattorneyfiled,Randazzaet
al.v.GoDaddyLLCetal.,casenumber20145636CA01,intheCircuitCourtforthe
EleventhJudicialCircuitofFlorida.
RandazzafiledthislawsuitinFlorida,asheisaFloridaattorneyaswell,andwantedto
useFloridalawsthatwouldfavorhisagendatoobtainmypersonalinformation,billing
information,phoneinformation,andhomeaddress.Healsousedthislegalactionto
obtainprivateinformation,attackandharassEliotBernstein(iViewitInventor),Porn
IndustryBloggersandWhistleblowersDianaGrandmasonandAlexandraMayers.
DianaGrandmasonisalsoaregisteredHumanTrafficVictim.Ioftenusedtheirblogsas
sourcesofpostsonmyblogs.Randazzaretaliatedagainstthemaswellforthis.
DianaGrandmasonandAlexandraMayersareWhistleblowersandshouldhave
FederalandStateProtectioninthisregard.
Theyareconstantlyharassedby
RandazzaLegalGroupandthoseconnectedtoMarcRandazzaaswellasRandazza
himself.These2womenarepornindustryinsidersandhavereportedonorganized
crimeinthepornindustryforyears.Ihavepickedupafewoftheirstories,andhad
Randazzadothesamethingtomeinwhichheandhisassociatesdidtothemand
otherpornindustrywhistleblowers.Theyareinconstantdanger,underconstantthreats
andduressbyRandazzaandthoseconnectedtohim.
Randazzaetal.v.GoDaddyLLC
etal,Florida,wasalegalfilingforabillofpure
discovery,sohecouldsetusallupforthefelonycrimeofextortion,heclaimedtothe
mediaitwasto''bringextortionclaimsagainstagroupofindividualsallegedlybehinda
collectionofdefamatorywebsites''.
MarcRandazzaalsotoldmedia''thatagroupledbyCrystalL.Cox,abloggeratthe
centerofanotablerecentdefamationcase,hasconspiredtoextortmoneyfromhimby
buyingwebsitedomainnamesrelatedtohisandhisfamilymembers'names,filling
themwithfalseandharmfulstatementsandseekingpaymentforretractionsofthe
statements''.
Myformerattorney,didthismaliciouslyanddeliberately,knowingfullwellthatitwasnot
trueinanyway.AndthatIhadbeengivennodueprocessontheseallegations.
24
Thislegalaction,
Randazzaetal.v.GoDaddyLLC
etal,targetedinformationfrom
GoDaddy,Web.comGroupInc.andSoftLayerTechnologiesInc.thatRandazza
claimedwasrelevanttohisclaims.
Yet,thiswasreallyusedtogetprivateinformationonusalltousetoattackusfurther,
defameus,harassus,intimidateus,bullyusandsueusinothercourts.Andashe
himselfhasstatedoverandover,tosetusupforthecrimeofextortionasagroup.
AtthistimeRandazzatoldLaw360''Coxisawelldocumentedextortionist,Randazza
says,alsodescribingherasbyherownclaimhomelessandlivinginachurch
property''
RandazzaalsoclaimedtoLaw360that''Coxenlistedthehelpofotherindividuals,
includingEliotI.BernsteinofFlorida,AlexanderaA.MayersofLasVegasandDiana
GrandmaisonofFlorida''
AND
Together,thetortfeasorscontinuetoassistandaidoneanotherinpublishingfalseand
harmfulstatementsaboutplaintiffsinaconstantlyshiftingconfigurationofstraw
ownershipinordertoavoiddetectionbyplaintiffs,legalliabilityfortheirunlawfulactions
andtoconcealthetrueownershipofthesewebsitesanddomainnames,Randazza
says.
Myformerattorneyknewthiswasfalse,yetmaliciouslykeptuphisliferuining
harassmentcampaignagainstme.
ThesetwowomenweretargetedinthesamewayasIwasandintheirresearchthey
cameacrossme,andmethem.SoRandazzatargetedthemalongwithmetostiflefree
speech,toflatoutSTOPtheflowofinformationonlinethatpaintedhiminalessthan
favorablelight.
RandazzaandhisAssociateshavestalkedAlexandraMayersandDianaGrandmason
foryears,andduetotheirconnectiontohigherupsinthePornIndustry,theyhavehad
noStateorFederalProtection.Randazzahaspostedthemakeandmodelof
Alexandrascar,herhomeaddressandwishedheDeath.Ihaveevenbeentoldthathe
hassaidthatifhethoughtitwouldonlykillherhewouldthrowa
Molotovcocktailinto
herhome.
25
OnoraboutMarchof2014
,MarcRandazzacontactedpeopleIhadworkedfor,got
mypaydocumentsbythreateningtosuethem.Thenpostedthisincourtmotionswhich
heleakedtoonlinemediaandisnowaccessibletotheworld.
Myformerattorneygotmyinformationunethicallyandbyintimidatingpeopleandthen
broadcastittotheworldviacourtmotionshefiledthenpostedonhisandotherlegal
blogsofhisconspirators.
AroundthissametimeRandazza,harassed,threatened,bulliedandattackedmy
church.Hescaredthemintogivinghimmyhomeaddress,churchtrips,banking
information,phoneinformationandthenhepostedthisinformationonlineandincourt
motionswhichhiscoconspiratorsthenbroadcastworldwide.
Allthisputmeindanger.AndthoughIcouldnotrentahomeduetoRandazzas
defamationnorgetanymoreclientstohaveanincome.FromthatpointIcouldno
longerlivinginthechurchhousing,asIwasinfearofmylife,Iwasfollowedbya
PrivateInvestigatorhiredbyMarcRandazza,andunderconstantbullyingandattacks
fromhisassociatesviaphone,text,email,threatstomykneecaps,threatstocomingto
myhome,andconstantonlinehateandextremedefamation.
SinceMayof2013Ihavebeenhomeless,havingbeenunabletoliveinchurchhousing
orrentahome.Ihavenowaytomakealiving,andeatviasocialprogramsandchurch
handouts.
Alsoaroundthistime,Randazzacontactedandbullied,threatentosue,andharassed
myexs,myformerchurchassociates,andotherpeopleandthreatenedtosuethemif
theydidnottellhimalltheyknewaboutme.RandazzausedhisNevadaSLAPPsuit
againstmeashisauthoritytothesefolkstomakethemgivehimmyprivateinformation
whichheusedtoharmme.
OnMarch12th2014
(Document1811),DistrictofNevadaRandazav.Cox,myformer
attorneyRandazzafiledyetanothersworndeclarationwiththecourt,andflatoutliedinthis
courtdocuments,thatCoxhadExtortedhimandhisfamily.
26
Exhibit17isanEmailfromMarcRandazzatohisformerclientCrystalCoxthatproveshedid
notthinkhisclient'semailtohimwastryingtoextorthim,butinsteadmerelyaskingforajob.
OnApril10th,2014
RandazzafiledaSLAPPlawsuitagainstPornIndustryInsider,Whistle
BlowerandInvestigativeBloggerAlexandraMelodyMayersinDistrictCourt,ClarkCounty,
Nevada,EighthJudicialDistrict,CaseA14699072C.
Thislawsuitwastosuppressherspeech,shutdownherblogsandremoveherparodyofhim
online.Itwasalsotoharassher,bankrupther,intimidateherandteachheralesson.
MyformerattorneyMarcRandazzahadclaimedthatIownedRandazzaNews.comandthatI
hadcreatedaparodyofhisdaughter30yearsintothefuture.YethethensuedAlexandra
Mayers,claimingitwasher.Randazzasuedhetostifleherspeech,shutdownherblogs
speakingcriticalofhimandstoptheflowofinformationonlineregardinghimandhiswifeJennifer
Randazza.
Randazzav.MayersA14699072C
,DistrictCourt,ClarkCounty,Nevada,EighthJudicial
District,Department32,wasfiledinordertoteachAlexandraMayersalessonforsupporting
me,andhelpingtokeepmevisibleandsafefromthoseinthepornindustrywhohadthreatened
me,intimidatedme,bulliedmeandconstantlyattackedmeonline.
ThiscasewasforDefamationandFalseLight,andwasaSLAPPsuitdesignedtochillthe
speechofthisbloggerwhomhadtriedtohelpmestaysafe.
NevadaattorneyMarcJ.Randazza,hasbeeninvolvedinprostitution,organizedcrime,and
pornography.Allwhotryandreportonhimareshutdownsomehowbyhimandhisassociates.
OnApril8th2014
,IfiledaSupremeCourtAppealregardingNinthCircuitCase:
1235238ID:8964107wherebyJudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,and
AndrewD.Hurwitz,accusedmeofhavingahistoryofpostingthingsonlineandseeking
moneyforaretraction.ThiswasflatoutfalseandbasedonlyonaNewYorkTimes
article,ofwhichRandazzahimselfhadcreatedthemediastormthatpaintedme,his
formerclientouttobeacriminalextortionistandhebroughtinIViewitVideoTechnology
InventorEliotBernstein.ThiscasewasDocketedonApril16,2014,withtheSupreme
CourtoftheUnitedStates,seeCrystalCox,Petitionerv.ObsidianFinanceGroup,
LLC,etal.Case(1235238,1235319)
27

ATthistimeRandazzav.CoxisstillgoingoninthestateofNevada.Icannotaffordan
attorneyandsimplydothebestIcantocontinuetofightformylifeandstandupformy
rightsandtherightsofRandazzasothervictims.
NevadaRulesofProfessionalConductRandazzaViolated
CLIENTLAWYERRELATIONSHIP
Randazzadidnotabidebymydecisionsconcerningrepresentation.Hedidnotconsultwithme
beforeproposingadealallegedlyonmybehalfandinmybestinterestwiththeopposition,and
hesoughtEXTREMEretaliationwhenIchosetolongerhavehimrepresentmeashisclient.
ThisisaViolationofRule1.2.
Randazzadidnotabidebymywishesofwantingtoappealandpursuedasettlementwiththe
oppositionofwhichhedidnotincludemeinthedetailsofthisnegotiation.
RandazzaactedinrepresentationsofCox,withoutinformedconsent.Andthereforeviolated
Rule1.2
RandazzadidnotdiscusswithmeanyactionsthathethoughtImayhavetakenthathethought
werecriminal,ofwhich,asmyattorneyheisobligatedto.Insteadheusedhispoweroverthe
courtsandhiscloutwiththemediatodefameme,andabusememassivestressandirreparable
harm.
IfhethoughtIengagedinanycriminalactivity,itwashislawfulandethicaldutytodiscussthis
withme,insteadofsimplytelltheworldandthecourtsIwasguiltyofacrimewithno
adjudicationordueprocess.
Rule1.2.
ScopeofRepresentationandAllocationofAuthorityBetweenClientandLawyer.
(a)Subjecttoparagraphs(c)and(d),alawyershallabidebyaclientsdecisionconcerning
theobjectivesofrepresentationand,asrequiredbyRule1.4,shallconsultwiththeclientasto
themeansbywhichtheyaretobepursued.Alawyermaytakesuchactiononbehalfoftheclient
asisimpliedlyauthorizedtocarryouttherepresentation.Alawyershallabidebyaclients
28
decisionwhethertosettleamatter.
(b)Alawyersrepresentationofaclient,includingrepresentationbyappointment,doesnot
constituteanendorsementoftheclientspolitical,economic,socialormoralviewsoractivities.
(c)Alawyermaylimitthescopeoftherepresentationifthelimitationisreasonableunder
thecircumstancesandtheclientgivesinformedconsent.
(d)Alawyershallnotcounselaclienttoengage,orassistaclient,inconductthatthelawyer
knowsiscriminalorfraudulent,butalawyermaydiscussthelegalconsequencesofany
proposedcourseofconductwithaclientandmaycounselorassistaclienttomakeagoodfaith
efforttodeterminethevalidity,scope,meaningorapplicationofthelaw.
Rule1.5.Fees.
Randazzaviolatedrule1.5ashetoldmehewasrepresentingmeforFREE,ProBono,thenhe
turnedaroundandwantedmoneytotravel,tofiledocuments,forhotelsandmore.Knowingfull
wellthatIhadNOMONEY.
Rule1.6.ConfidentialityofInformation.
Attorney Marc Randazza revealed ALL of my private information, strategy and secrets,
notonlytotheoppositionwithoutinformedconsentbuttotheentireworld.
He violated Rule 1.5 in revealing my information without informed consent as the chronology
aboveclearlyshows.
Randazza also violated

Rule 1.5 in putting me in physical harm, inciting hate among his peers
and the world. And encouraging threats, harassment and online attacks of me. As well as
physical threats of coming to my town, of taking out my kneecaps,textthreateningofknowing
29
whereIliveandmore.
Randazza published my home address to the world and used court motions to attack me, then
gave those to media to defame me and expose mypersonalinformationandhomeaddresstothe
world. All the while claiming I had harmed an infant child, lying about me and inciting world
wideHATE.
Also under this rule, if he thought I had committed a crime then he went about handling it,
completelyunethicalandinviolationofmydueprocessrights.
Randazza did not make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure
of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of aclient.Thereforehe
violatedRule1.5
.
(a)A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client
gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the
representation,orthedisclosureispermittedbyparagraphs(b)and(d).
(b)A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the
extentthelawyerreasonablybelievesnecessary:
(1)Topreventreasonablycertaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharm
(2)To prevent the client from committing a criminal or fraudulent act in furtherance of
which the client has used or is using the lawyers services, but the lawyer shall, where
practicable,firstmakereasonableefforttopersuadetheclienttotakesuitableaction
(3)To prevent, mitigate, or rectify the consequences of a clients criminal or fraudulent

act in the commissionofwhichthelawyersserviceshavebeenorarebeingused,butthelawyer
shall, where practicable, first make reasonable effort to persuade the client to take corrective
action
(4)TosecurelegaladviceaboutthelawyerscompliancewiththeseRules
(5)To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyerinacontroversybetweenthe

lawyer and the client, toestablishadefensetoacriminalchargeorcivilclaimagainstthelawyer
based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any
proceedingconcerningthelawyersrepresentationoftheclientor
(6)Tocomplywithotherlaworacourtorder.
(7)To detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyers change of
employment or from changes in the composition or ownershipofafirm,butonlyiftherevealed
informationwouldnotcompromisetheattorneyclientprivilegeorotherwiseprejudicetheclient.
(c)A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized
disclosureof,orunauthorizedaccessto,informationrelatingtotherepresentationofaclient.
(d)A lawyer shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the
extent the lawyerreasonablybelievesnecessarytopreventacriminalactthatthelawyerbelieves
islikelytoresultinreasonablycertaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharm.
30
Rule1.7.ConflictofInterest:CurrentClients.
I Randazza had a conflict of interest or felt that Cox was a criminal and did not want to
represent her, then he should not have done so. Instead of getting her private information,
strategyandsecretsandthenruiningherlife,asdetailsabove,clearlyshow.
It is alsoaconflictofinterestforRandazzaLegalGrouptorepresentMarcRandazzainsuinghis
former client in the District of Nevada Randazza v. Cox case, as this law firm represented Cox
and had a duty and obligation to her before representing another party to sue her, even if that
partywasoneoftheirpartnersorownattorneys.
Randazza should nothavesuedme,norrepresentedhimselfdoingsowiththesamelawfirmthat

representedmeprior.
Rule1.7wasclearlyviolatedbyRandazza
Rule1.7
(a)Except as providedinparagraph(b),alawyershallnotrepresentaclientiftherepresentation
involvesaconcurrentconflictofinterest.Aconcurrentconflictofinterestexistsif:
(1)Therepresentationofoneclientwillbedirectlyadversetoanotherclientor
(2)There is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be
materially limited by the lawyers responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third
personorbyapersonalinterestofthelawyer.
(b)Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph

(a),alawyermayrepresentaclientif:
(1)The lawyer reasonablybelievesthatthelawyerwillbeabletoprovidecompetentand

diligentrepresentationtoeachaffectedclient
(2)Therepresentationisnotprohibitedbylaw
(3)The representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against
another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a
tribunaland
(4)Eachaffectedclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting
Rule1.8.ConflictofInterest:CurrentClients:SpecificRules.
Attorney Marc Randazza should not have engaged in any activity adverse to me, his
formerclientandasseenaboveheengagedinmany.
(a)Alawyershallnotenterintoabusinesstransactionwithaclientorknowinglyacquire
anownership,possessory,securityorotherpecuniaryinterestadversetoaclientunless:
(1)The transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and
31
reasonable to the client and arefullydisclosedandtransmittedinwritinginamannerthatcanbe

reasonablyunderstoodbytheclient
(2)The client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a

reasonableopportunitytoseektheadviceofindependentlegalcounselonthetransactionand
(3)The client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential
terms of the transaction and the lawyers role in the transaction,includingwhetherthelawyeris
representingtheclientinthetransaction.
(b)A lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the
disadvantage of the client unless the client gives informed consent, except as permitted or
requiredbytheseRules.
(d)Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a lawyer shall not make or

negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary ormediarightstoaportrayaloraccountbased
insubstantialpartoninformationrelatingtotherepresentation.
(e)A lawyer shall not provide financialassistancetoaclientinconnectionwithpending

orcontemplatedlitigation,exceptthat:
(1)A lawyermayadvancecourtcostsandexpensesoflitigation,therepaymentofwhich
maybecontingentontheoutcomeofthematterand
(2)A lawyer representing an indigent client may pay court costs and expenses of
litigationonbehalfoftheclient.
(f)A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a clientfromoneotherthan

theclientunless:
(1)Theclientgivesinformedconsent
(2)There is no interference with the lawyers independence ofprofessionaljudgmentor

withtheclientlawyerrelationshipand
(3)InformationrelatingtorepresentationofaclientisprotectedasrequiredbyRule1.6.
(g)A lawyer who represents two or more clients shall not participate in making an
aggregate settlement of the claims of or against the clients, or in a criminal case an aggregated
agreement as to guilty or nolo contendere pleas, unless each client gives informed consent, in a
writing signed by the client. The lawyers disclosureshallincludetheexistenceandnatureofall
theclaimsorpleasinvolvedandoftheparticipationofeachpersoninthesettlement.
(h)Alawyershallnot:
(1)Make an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyers liability to a client for

malpracticeunlesstheclientisindependentlyrepresentedinmakingtheagreementor
(2)Settle a claim or potential claim for such liability with an unrepresented client or
former client unless that person is advised in writingofthedesirabilityofseekingandisgivena
reasonableopportunitytoseektheadviceofindependentlegalcounselinconnectiontherewith.
(i)A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject
matteroflitigationthelawyerisconductingforaclient,exceptthatthelawyermay:
(1)Acquirealienauthorizedbylawtosecurethelawyersfeeorexpensesand
(2)Contractwithaclientforareasonablecontingentfeeinacivilcase.
(l)A lawyer shall not stand as security for costs or as surety onanyappearance,appeal,
orotherbondorsuretyinanycaseinwhichthelawyeriscounsel.
(m)While lawyers are associated in a firm, a prohibition in the foregoing paragraphs,

32
withtheexceptionofparagraph(j),thatappliestoanyoneofthemshallapplytoallofthem.
[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]
AttorneyMarcRandazzastolemyintellectualproperty,defamedmeintentionallyand
maliciously,andcausedmeserioushardship.
MarcRandazzadidnothaveacontractwherehelinedoutanyfees,yetheexpectedmetopay
forthingsofwhichIhadnorealunderstandingandclaimedtoberepresentingmeProBono,for
FREE.
MarcRandazzausedprivateinformation,privilegedinformationagainstme.
MarcRandazzahadnorighttoportraymetothemediaashedid.
MarcRandazzaalsoviolatedtheaboveruleintryingtonegotiatedeals,settlementand
representationmattersWITHOUTmyconsentorknowledge.ICLEARLYdidnotgiveMarc
Randazzainformedconsent.
MarcRandazzaviolatedRule1.8inmassivewidespreadconflictsofinterest.
Rule1.9.DutiestoFormerClients.
Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group represented me in pretty much the same issues
exactly as RLG then represented Marc Randazza in claims as a Plaintiff against me. This is a
violationofthisrule.
Marc Randazza and his law firm acted materially adverse to my interests. And did so with full
knowledgeanddeliberateintent.ThisviolatesRule1.9
Marc Randazza used inside and privileged information hegainedwhilerepresentingme,against

metosueme.
WhichviolatesRule1.9.
MarcRandazzausedinformationagainstmetomydisadvantage.Whichviolatesthisrule.
Marc Randazza acquired protected information from me then used this todefameme,setmeup
for a crime, paint me out to the world as a criminal, sue me, take my blogs and intellectual
property, interfere with my appeal, violated my due process laws, violated my constitutional
rights, suppress my speech, harass, bully and defame me and my sources and to try and STOP
myNinthCircuitappealagainstmywillandmyrights.
ThisviolatesRule1.6and1.9.
33

MarcRandazzarevealedinformationaboutme,withoutmyinformedconsent.
(a)A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent
another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that persons interests are
materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed
consent,confirmedinwriting.
(b)A lawyershallnotknowinglyrepresentapersoninthesameorasubstantiallyrelated
matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously
representedaclient:
(1)Whoseinterestsaremateriallyadversetothatpersonand
(2)About whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and1.9(c)
thatismaterialtothematter
(3)Unlesstheformerclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting.
(c)A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or
formerfirmhasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamattershallnotthereafter:
(1)Use informationrelatingtotherepresentationtothedisadvantageoftheformerclient
except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information
hasbecomegenerallyknownor
(2)Reveal information relating to the representation except astheseRuleswouldpermit

orrequirewithrespecttoaclient.
Rule1.10.ImputationofConflictsofInterest.
Marc Randazza andhislawfirmRLGviolated1.10inrepresenting,MarcRandazzaandhiswife

andchildinsuingme,theirformerclient.
(a)While lawyers areassociatedinafirm,noneofthemshallknowinglyrepresentaclientwhen
any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7, 1.9, or 2.2,
unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not
present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining
lawyersinthefirm.
(b)When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited
from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client
representedbytheformerlyassociatedlawyerandnotcurrentlyrepresentedbythefirmunless:
(1)The matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly
associatedlawyerrepresentedtheclientand
(2)Any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rules 1.6 and1.9(c)
thatismaterialtothematter.
(c)A disqualification prescribed bythisRulemaybewaivedbytheaffectedclientunder

theconditionsstatedinRule1.7.
(d)Reserved.
34

(e)When alawyerbecomesassociatedwithafirm,nolawyerassociatedinthefirmshall
knowingly represent a person in a matter in which that lawyer is disqualified under Rule 1.9
unless:
(1)The personally disqualified lawyer did not have a substantial role in or primary
responsibilityforthematterthatcausesthedisqualificationunderRule1.9
(2)The personally disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the
matterandisapportionednopartofthefeetherefromand
(3)Written noticeispromptlygiventoanyaffectedformerclienttoenableittoascertain
compliancewiththeprovisionsofthisRule.
Rule1.12.FormerJudge,Arbitrator,MediatororOtherThirdPartyNeutral.
Even if Marc Randazza did not believe he represented me, which hefalselyclaims,thenhewas
at least acting as an arbitrator, mediator or other third party neutral in his counsleing me via
phone and email, his email saying he would represent me, his negotiations with the opposition
andhiscommunicationsactingasmyattorneywithEugeneVolokh.
WhichviolatesRule1.12.
(a)Except as stated in paragraph (d), a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a
matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge or other
adjudicative officer, or law clerk to such a person or as an arbitrator, mediator or other
thirdparty neutral, unless all parties to the proceeding give informed consent confirmed in
writing.
(b)A lawyer shall not negotiate for employment with any person who is involved as a
party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and
substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer, or as an arbitrator, mediator or other
thirdparty neutral. A lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge or other adjudicative officermay
negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer involved in a matter in which the clerk is
participating personally and substantially, but only after the lawyer has notified the judge or
otheradjudicativeofficer.
(c)If a lawyer is disqualified by paragraph (a), no lawyer in a firm with which that
lawyerisassociatedmayknowinglyundertakeorcontinuerepresentationinthematterunless:
(1)The disqualified lawyer is timelyscreenedfromanyparticipationinthematterandis

apportionednopartofthefeetherefromand
(2)Written notice is promptly given to thepartiesandanyappropriatetribunaltoenable

themtoascertaincompliancewiththeprovisionsofthisRule.
(d)An arbitrator selected as a partisan of a party in a multimember arbitration panel is

notprohibitedfromsubsequentlyrepresentingthatparty.
35
Rule1.18.DutiestoProspectiveClient.
Marc Randazza claims in sworn statements that he was notmyattorney.Yetheemailedmethat

he would take representation, he attempted to broker deals, he advised me on the phone and in
emails about court transcripts, he told many attorneys he represented me, he discussed filing
courtmotionswithattorneyEugeneVolokh,andcounseledmeonmycase.
Therefore it is no excuse to have harmed me, defamed me, interfered with my business and
personal relationships, only because he thought he was not acting as my attorney prior. Clearly
he owed me the same standard of care as a potential client. And Marc Randazza knewthisfull
wellasaseasonedattorneywithhisownlawfirmandinmultiplestates.
Marc Randazza violated Rule 1.18 and did not have my informed consent for his disclosure of
my private emails, negotiation tactics, strategy, nor toprovideinformationthatcausedmeharm.
Andtodosodeliberatelywithmaliciousintent.
Mr.Randazzaclaims,underoath,thathewasnotmyattorney.Ifullybelievehewas.
However,ifheweretoconvincethisboardthathewasnotmyattorney,thenclearlyhe
wasbrokeringdealsallegedlyonmybehalf,clearlyhewasworkingwithotherattorneys
(EugeneVolokh)andwiththecourtstofileamotionforanewtrial,astheemail
evidenceshows,andinthiswasatleastathirdpartyneutral,amediator,orIwasa
potentialclient.Inthatheowedmeadutytonotharmme,notpostmyprivateemailsto
him,notpaintmeouttotheworldtobeacriminalwithnoadjudicatedfacts,notofferto
testifyagainstme,notfileamicusbriefsinoppositiontomybestinterest,notlieabout
meanddefameme,protectmyrightsandstrategyinmycase,andactwithintegrityas
tomybestinterest.
IfRandazzawasnotmyattorney,thenhewasnegotiatingwiththeopposition,giving
themmysecrets,strategy,strengthsandweaknesswithoutauthorizationfromme.
Rule1.18
(a)A person who consults with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a clientlawyer
relationshipwithrespecttoamatterisaprospectiveclient.
(b)Even when no clientlawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has learned

information from a prospective client shall not useorrevealthatinformation,exceptasRule1.9
wouldpermitwithrespecttoinformationofaformerclient.
(c)A lawyer subject to paragraph(b)shallnotrepresentaclientwithinterestsmaterially

adverse to those of a prospective client inthesameorasubstantiallyrelatedmatterifthelawyer
received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that
36
person in the matter, except as provided in paragraph (d). If a lawyer is disqualified from
representationunderthisparagraph,nolawyerinafirmwithwhichthatlawyerisassociatedmay
knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in
paragraph(d).
(d)When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined inparagraph(c),

representationispermissibleif:
(1)Both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent,
confirmedinwriting,or:
(2)The lawyer who received the information took reasonable measures to avoid
exposure to more disqualifying information thanwasreasonablynecessarytodeterminewhether
torepresenttheprospectiveclientand
(i)The disqualifiedlawyeristimelyscreenedfromanyparticipationinthematter
andisapportionednopartofthefeetherefromand
(ii)Writtennoticeispromptlygiventotheprospectiveclient.
(e)A person who communicates information to a lawyer without any reasonable

expectation that the lawyer is willing to discuss the possibility of forming a clientlawyer
relationship, or for purposes which do not include a good faith intention to retain the lawyer in
the subject matter of the consultation, is not a prospective client within the meaning of this
Rule.
(f)A lawyer may condition conversations with a prospective client on the persons
informed consent that no information disclosed during the consultation will prohibit the lawyer
from representing a different client in the matter. If the agreement expressly so provides, the
prospective client may also consent to thelawyerssubsequentuseofinformationreceivedfrom
theprospectiveclient.
(g)Whenever a prospective client shall request information regarding a lawyer or law

firmforthepurposeofmakingadecisionregardingemploymentofthelawyerorlawfirm:
(1)The lawyer or law firm shall promptly furnish (by mail if requested) the written
informationdescribedinRule1.4(c).
(2)The lawyer orlawfirmmayfurnishsuchadditionalfactualinformationregardingthe

lawyerorlawfirmdeemedvaluabletoassisttheclient.
(3)If the information furnished to the client includesafeecontract,thetopofeachpage

of the contract shall be marked SAMPLE in red ink in a type size one size larger than the
largest type used in the contract and the words DO NOT SIGN shall appear on the client
signatureline.
[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006asamendedeffectiveApril4,2014.]
COUNSELOR
Rule2.1.Advisor.
Marc Randazza violated Rule 2.EvenifMarcRandazzawasNOTmyattorneyasheclaims

in court, then he was at the very east my counselor. Marc Randazza counseled me on my case,
andyetturnedaroundanddeliberatecausedmemalicious,willful,wantonharm.
37

If not a counselor then at least an Advisor, Third Party Neutral or an Intermediary. And
stillowedmeadutyofcare,inwhichheclearlyviolated.
Rule2.1.Advisor.
In representing a client, a lawyershallexerciseindependentprofessional
judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not onlytolawbut
to otherconsiderationssuchasmoral,economic,socialandpoliticalfactors,thatmayberelevant
totheclientssituation.
Rule2.1(formerSupremeCourtRule167)isthesameasABAModelRule2.1.
Rule2.2.Intermediary.
(a)Alawyermayactasintermediarybetweenclientsif:
(1)The lawyer consults with each client concerning the implications of the common
representation, including the advantages and risks involved, and the effectontheattorneyclient
privileges,andobtainseachclientsconsenttothecommonrepresentation
(2)The lawyer reasonably believes that the matter can be resolved on terms compatible
with the clients best interests, that each client will be able to make adequately informed
decisions in the matter and that there is little risk of material prejudice to the interests ofanyof
theclientsifthecontemplatedresolutionisunsuccessfuland
(3)The lawyer reasonably believes that the common representation can be undertaken
impartially and without improper effect on other responsibilities the lawyer has to any of the
clients.
(b)Whileactingasintermediary,thelawyershallconsultwitheachclientconcerningthe
decisions to be made and the considerations relevant in making them, so that each client can
makeadequatelyinformeddecisions.
(c)A lawyer shall withdraw as intermediary if anyoftheclientssorequests,orifanyof

the conditions statedinsubsection1isnolongersatisfied.Uponwithdrawal,thelawyershallnot
continuetorepresentanyoftheclientsinthematterthatwasthesubjectoftheintermediation.
MODELRULECOMPARISON2006
Rule 2.2 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 168) is based on 1983 Model Rule 2.2. The ABA
House ofDelegatesdeletedModelRule2.2andincorporateditintothecommentstoModelRule
1.7 in2002.TheRulehasbeenretainedinNevadabecauseNevadahasnotadoptedcommentsto
theRulesandtheRuleprovidessomeguidanceinclarifyingconflictofinterestconcerns.
Rule2.3.EvaluationforUsebyThirdPersons.
(a)A lawyer may provide an evaluation of a matter affecting a client for the use of
someone other than the client if the lawyer reasonably believes that making the evaluation is
compatiblewithotheraspectsofthelawyersrelationshipwiththeclient.
(b)When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the evaluation is likely to
affect the clients interests materially and adversely, the lawyer shall not provide the evaluation
unlesstheclientgivesinformedconsent.
(c)Except as disclosure is authorized in connection with a report of an evaluation,

38
informationrelatingtotheevaluationisotherwiseprotectedbyRule1.6.
Rule2.3(formerlySupremeCourtRule169)isthesameasABAModelRule2.3.
Rule2.4.LawyerServingasThirdPartyNeutral.
(a)A lawyer serves as a thirdparty neutral when thelawyerassiststwoormorepersons

who are not clients of the lawyertoreacharesolutionofadisputeorothermatterthathasarisen
between them. Service as athirdpartyneutralmayincludeserviceasanarbitrator,amediatoror
insuchothercapacityaswillenablethelawyertoassistthepartiestoresolvethematter.
(b)A lawyer serving as a thirdparty neutral shall inform unrepresented parties that the
lawyer is not representing them. When thelawyerknowsorreasonablyshouldknowthataparty
does not understand the lawyers role in the matter, the lawyer shall explain the difference
between the lawyers role as a thirdparty neutral and a lawyers role as one who represents a
client.
ADVOCATE

Marc Randazza acted as myadvocate.Hespokewithotherattorneys,mycolleagues,andhetold
me that people like me are important. He was an advocate for me and turned around and acted
with contention, revenge and retaliation. Marc Randazza sued me in a frivolous, life altering
oppressive lawsuit. He violated my First AmendmentRights,myrightsofdueprocessandacted
inextremeagainstmybestinterest.
Marc Randazza put me in danger, rendered me homeless and with no way torentahomenorto
get clients and resume my life. as he painted me out as a scammer, and a felony criminal
extortionist to the world. Therefore no one would hire me, rent to me andIlostallbusinessand
personalconnections.
Marc Randazza violated Rule 3.1 in bringing claims against me. Andinattemptingtosetmeup
forcriminalclaims.
Rule3.1.Meritorious Claims and Contentions.
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a

proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for
doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension,
modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for thedefendantinacriminalproceeding,or
the respondent in a proceeding that could result inincarceration,mayneverthelesssodefendthe
proceedingastorequirethateveryelementofthecasebeestablished.
39
MarcRandazzaviolatedrule3.7
inofferingtobedeposedfortheoppositioninmyappeal
case.
Rule3.7.LawyerasWitness.
(a)A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a
necessarywitnessunless:
(1)Thetestimonyrelatestoanuncontestedissue
(2)Thetestimonyrelatestothenatureandvalueoflegalservicesrenderedinthecaseor
(3)Disqualificationofthelawyerwouldworksubstantialhardshipontheclient.
(b)A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in whichanotherlawyerinthelawyersfirm

islikelytobecalledasawitnessunlessprecludedfromdoingsobyRule1.7orRule1.9.
TRANSACTIONSWITHPERSONSOTHERTHANCLIENTS
Marc Randazza violated Rule 4.1 and LIED deliberately to others regarding me. As the above
chronology clearly shows Marc Randazza knowingly made false statements of fact to others,
including and notlimitedto: WIPO,Forbes,NPR,theNewYorkTimes,theNinthCircuitcourt,
Florida District Court, Nevada State and Federal Court, multiple legal bloggers and law firms,
forensic investigators, my friend, my exs, my pastor, my church,myphonevendor,mydomain
registrar,andmoreThirdParties.
Marc Randazza did this with deliberate intention and deliberate knowledge that the false
statementsoffactwerefalse.
Rule4.1.TruthfulnessinStatementstoOthers.
Inthecourseofrepresentingaclientalawyershallnotknowingly:
(a)Makeafalsestatementofmaterialfactorlawtoathirdpersonor
(b)Fail to disclose a materialfacttoathirdpersonwhendisclosureisnecessarytoavoid

assistingacriminalorfraudulentactbyaclient,unlessdisclosureisprohibitedbyRule1.6.
Rule4.4.RespectforRightsofThirdPersons.
Marc Randazza deliberately and with clear intention used every mean he could to embarrass,
delay,andburdenthirdpartiestogetprivatepersonalinformationaboutme.Hedidthisinregard
to and not limited to Diana Grandmason, Alexandra Mayers, Stephanie DeYoung, my church,
my Pastor, my church secretary, and more. He pressured and threatened them until they gave
informationtohim.
40

Rule4.4
(a)In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantialpurposeother
than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that
violatethelegalrightsofsuchaperson.
(b)Alawyerwhoreceivesadocumentorelectronicallystoredinformationrelatingtothe
representation of the lawyers client and knows or reasonablyshouldknowthatthedocumentor
electronicallystoredinformationwasinadvertentlysentshallpromptlynotifythesender.
MarcRandazzaalsoviolatedRule4.4
intakingmyprivateemailtohimandsendingitto
media,tolegalbloggersandclaimingitwasextortion.Knowingfullwellthatthefullemail
threadshowedhimsayingthatheknewIwasaskingforajob.
LAWFIRMSANDASSOCIATIONS
Rule5.1.ResponsibilitiesofPartners,Managers,andSupervisoryLawyers.
(a)A partner in alawfirm,andalawyerwhoindividuallyortogetherwithotherlawyers

possesses comparable managerial authorityinalawfirm,shallmakereasonableeffortstoensure
that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm
conformtotheRulesofProfessionalConduct.
(b)A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make
reasonableeffortstoensurethattheotherlawyerconformstotheRulesofProfessionalConduct.
(c)A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyers violation of the Rules of
ProfessionalConductif:
(1)The lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct
involvedor
(2)The lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in
which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and
knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to
takereasonableremedialaction.
Rule5.2.ResponsibilitiesofaSubordinateLawyer.
(a)A lawyer is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct notwithstanding that the
lawyeractedatthedirectionofanotherperson.
(b)A subordinate lawyer does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if that
lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyers reasonable resolution of an arguable
questionofprofessionalduty.
MarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupviolatedRule5.1and5.2.
41
INFORMATIONABOUTLEGALSERVICES

Marc Randazza violated Rule 7.1, 7.2 in misleading me that he was an advocate for the free
speech of all. He made false statements of being a trademark and first amendment expert then
used this law to attack me and as the District of Nevada case, docket entry 200 shows, Marc
Randazza did not have a legitimate Trademark claim against me and violated my First
AmendmentRights.
Marc RandazzaviolatedmyrightsinviolationsofthisruleasIwasclearlymisleadastowhathe
was an advocate for and what he was an expert in. Turned out he was not an expert in
Trademark,Firstamendmentordomainlaw.
Rule7.1.Communications Concerning a Lawyers Services.

A lawyer shallnotmakea
false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyersservices.Acommunication
isfalseormisleadingifit:
(a)Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to

makethestatementconsideredasawholenotmateriallymisleading
(b)Is likely to create an unjustified or unreasonableexpectationaboutresultsthelawyer

can or has achieved, which shall be considered inherently misleading for the purposes of this
Rule, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of
ProfessionalConductorotherlaw
(c)Compares the lawyers services with other lawyers services, unless the comparison
canbefactuallysubstantiatedor
(d)ContainsatestimonialorendorsementwhichviolatesanyportionofthisRule.
[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006asamendedeffectiveSeptember1,2007.]
Rule 7.1 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 195) is the same as ABA ModelRule7.1exceptthat
paragraphs (b) through (d) are Nevada specific and have no counterpart in the ModelRule.The
2007amendmentschangedlanguageinparagraphs(b)and(d)only.
Rule7.2.Advertising.
(a)Subject to the requirements of Rule 7.1, a lawyer may advertiseservicesthroughthe

public media, such as a telephone directory, legal directory, newspaper or other periodical,
billboards and other signs, radio, television and recorded messages the public may access by
dialing a telephone number, or through written or electronic communication not involving
solicitationasprohibitedbyRule7.3.
These Rules shall not apply to any advertisement broadcast or disseminated in another
jurisdiction in which the advertising lawyer is admitted if such advertisement complies withthe
rules governing lawyer advertising in that jurisdiction and the advertisement is not intended
primarilyforbroadcastordisseminationwithintheStateofNevada.
(b)If the advertisement uses any actors to portray a lawyer, members of the law firm,
42
clients, or utilizes depictions offictionalizedeventsorscenes,thesamemustbedisclosed.Inthe

event actors areused,thedisclosuremustbesufficientlyspecifictoidentifywhichpersonsinthe
advertisement are actors, and the disclosure must appear for the duration in which the actor(s)
appearintheadvertisement.
(c)All advertisements and writtencommunicationsdisseminatedpursuanttotheseRules

shallidentifythenameofatleastonelawyerresponsiblefortheircontent.
(d)Every advertisement and written communication that indicates one or more areas of
lawinwhichthelawyerorlawfirmpracticesshallconformtotherequirementsofRule7.4.
(e)Every advertisement and written communication indicating thatthechargingofafee

is contingent on outcome or that the fee will be a percentage of the recovery shall contain the
following disclaimer if the client may be liable for the opposing parties fees and costs: You
mayhavetopaytheopposingpartiesattorneyfeesandcostsintheeventofaloss.
(f)A lawyer who advertises a specificfeeorrangeoffeesshallincludethedurationsaid

fees are in effect and any other limiting conditions to the availability of the fees. For
advertisements in the yellow pages of telephone directories or other media not published more
frequently than annually, theadvertisedfeeorrangeoffeesshallbehonoredfornolessthanone
yearfollowingpublication.
(g)A lawyer may make statements describing or characterizing the quality of the
lawyers services in advertisements and written communications. However, such statements are
subject to proof of verification, to be provided at the request of the state bar or a client or
prospectiveclient.
(h)Any statement or disclaimer required by these rules shall be made in each language
used in the advertisement or writing with respect towhichsuchrequiredstatementordisclaimer
relates provided, however,themerestatementthataparticularlanguageisspokenorunderstood
shallnotaloneresultintheneedforastatementordisclaimerinthatlanguage.
(i)
Statement regarding past results.
If the advertisement contains any reference to
past successes or results obtained, the communicating lawyer or member of the law firm must
have served as lead counsel in the matter giving rise to the recovery, or was primarily
responsible for the settlement or verdict. The advertisement shall also contain a disclaimer that
pastresultsdonotguarantee,warrant,orpredictfuturecases.
If the past successes or results obtained include a monetary sum, the amount involved
must have been actually received by the client, and the reference must be accompanied by
adequate information regarding the nature of the case or matter and the damages or injuries
sustained by the client, and if thegrossamountreceivedisstated,theattorneyfeesandlitigation
expenseswithheldfromtheamountmustbestatedaswell.
RandazzahasDutiestoCoxasaformerclient
MarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupowedmeaduty,astandardofcare,andhad
obligationstomeasaformerclient.MarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupviolatedRule
1.9andseriouslyactedadverselyagainstme.
Rule1.9.DutiestoFormerClients.
43

(a)Alawyerwhohasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamattershallnotthereafter
representanotherpersoninthesameorasubstantiallyrelatedmatterinwhichthat
personsinterestsaremateriallyadversetotheinterestsoftheformerclientunlessthe
formerclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting.
(b)Alawyershallnotknowinglyrepresentapersoninthesameorasubstantially
relatedmatterinwhichafirmwithwhichthelawyerformerlywasassociatedhad
previouslyrepresentedaclient:
(1)Whoseinterestsaremateriallyadversetothatpersonand
(2)AboutwhomthelawyerhadacquiredinformationprotectedbyRules1.6
and1.9(c)thatismaterialtothematter
(3)Unlesstheformerclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting.
(c)Alawyerwhohasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamatterorwhosepresentor
formerfirmhasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamattershallnotthereafter:
(1)Useinformationrelatingtotherepresentationtothedisadvantageofthe
formerclientexceptastheseRuleswouldpermitorrequirewithrespecttoaclient,or
whentheinformationhasbecomegenerallyknownor
(2)RevealinformationrelatingtotherepresentationexceptastheseRules
wouldpermitorrequirewithrespecttoaclient.
Rule1.7.ConflictofInterest:CurrentClients.
(a)Exceptasprovidedinparagraph(b),alawyershallnotrepresentaclientifthe
representationinvolvesaconcurrentconflictofinterest.Aconcurrentconflictofinterest
existsif:
(1)Therepresentationofoneclientwillbedirectlyadversetoanotherclientor
(2)Thereisasignificantriskthattherepresentationofoneormoreclientswill
bemateriallylimitedbythelawyersresponsibilitiestoanotherclient,aformerclientora
thirdpersonorbyapersonalinterestofthelawyer.
(b)Notwithstandingtheexistenceofaconcurrentconflictofinterestunder
paragraph(a),alawyermayrepresentaclientif:
(1)Thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatthelawyerwillbeabletoprovide
competentanddiligentrepresentationtoeachaffectedclient
(2)Therepresentationisnotprohibitedbylaw
(3)Therepresentationdoesnotinvolvetheassertionofaclaimbyoneclient
againstanotherclientrepresentedbythelawyerinthesamelitigationorother
proceedingbeforeatribunaland
44
(4)Eachaffectedclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting.
MarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupviolatedRule1.7inrepresentinghimandhisfamily
insuingme,aformerclient,andviolatedthisrulewithotheraspectsofthiscomplaint.Itwas
directlyadverseforRandazzaLegalGrouptorepresentMarcRandazza,JenniferRandazzaand
theirdaughterinclaimsagainstme,theirformerclient.
MarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupactedwithseriousconflictsofinterest.
CLIENTLAWYERRELATIONSHIP
MarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupdidnot
providecompetentrepresentationto
meastherecordshows.
MarcRandazzaviolatedRule1.1and1.2.
Rule1.1.Competence.Alawyershallprovidecompetentrepresentationtoaclient.
Competentrepresentationrequiresthelegalknowledge,skill,thoroughnessand
preparationreasonablynecessaryfortherepresentation.
Rule1.2.ScopeofRepresentationandAllocationofAuthorityBetweenClientand
Lawyer.
(a)Subjecttoparagraphs(c)and(d),alawyershallabidebyaclientsdecision
concerningtheobjectivesofrepresentationand,asrequiredbyRule1.4,shallconsult
withtheclientastothemeansbywhichtheyaretobepursued.Alawyermaytake
suchactiononbehalfoftheclientasisimpliedlyauthorizedtocarryoutthe
representation.Alawyershallabidebyaclientsdecisionwhethertosettleamatter.In
acriminalcase,thelawyershallabidebytheclientsdecision,afterconsultationwith
thelawyer,astoapleatobeentered,whethertowaivejurytrialandwhethertheclient
willtestify.
(b)Alawyersrepresentationofaclient,includingrepresentationbyappointment,
doesnotconstituteanendorsementoftheclientspolitical,economic,socialormoral
viewsoractivities.
(c)Alawyermaylimitthescopeoftherepresentationifthelimitationisreasonable
underthecircumstancesandtheclientgivesinformedconsent.
(d)Alawyershallnotcounselaclienttoengage,orassistaclient,inconductthat
thelawyerknowsiscriminalorfraudulent,butalawyermaydiscussthelegal
45
consequencesofanyproposedcourseofconductwithaclientandmaycounselor
assistaclienttomakeagoodfaithefforttodeterminethevalidity,scope,meaningor
applicationofthelaw.
MarcRandazzaviolatedRule1.3andwasnegligentinhisdiligenceinrepresentingme,
promptlyinformingme,communicatingwithme,respectingmeandmywishes,being
reasonableonconsultingmeregardingmyobjectives,andkeepingmeinformaiton..
Rule1.3.Diligence.
Alawyershallactwithreasonablediligenceandpromptnessin
representingaclient.
Rule1.3(formerlySupremeCourtRule153)isthesameasABAModelRule1.3.
Rule1.4.Communication.
(a)Alawyershall:
(1)Promptlyinformtheclientofanydecisionorcircumstancewithrespectto
whichtheclientsinformedconsentisrequiredbytheseRules
(2)Reasonablyconsultwiththeclientaboutthemeansbywhichtheclients
objectivesaretobeaccomplished
(3)Keeptheclientreasonablyinformedaboutthestatusofthematter
(4)Promptlycomplywithreasonablerequestsforinformationand
(5)Consultwiththeclientaboutanyrelevantlimitationonthelawyersconduct
whenthelawyerknowsthattheclientexpectsassistancenotpermittedbytheRulesof
ProfessionalConductorotherlaw.
(b)Alawyershallexplainamattertotheextentreasonablynecessarytopermitthe
clienttomakeinformeddecisionsregardingtherepresentation.
RandazzahadadutytoCoxtokeepinformationConfidential
MarcRandazzaviolatedRule1.6inhisdisclosureofmysecretsandstrategytothe
oppositioninmycasewithoutmypermissionandwithusingprivateemailsand
informationfrommetohimandhimtome,asaweaponagainstmeincourtsandmass
mediatobullyme,harassme,intimidatemeandruinmylifeandbusiness.
Rule1.6
.ConfidentialityofInformation.
(a)Alawyershallnotrevealinformationrelatingtorepresentationofaclientunless
46
theclientgivesinformedconsent,thedisclosureisimpliedlyauthorizedinordertocarry
outtherepresentation,orthedisclosureispermittedbyparagraphs(b)and(c).
(b)Alawyermayrevealinformationrelatingtotherepresentationofaclienttothe
extentthelawyerreasonablybelievesnecessary:
(1)Topreventreasonablycertaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharm
(2)Topreventtheclientfromcommittingacriminalorfraudulentactin
furtheranceofwhichtheclienthasusedorisusingthelawyersservices,butthelawyer
shall,wherepracticable,firstmakereasonableefforttopersuadetheclienttotake
suitableaction
(3)Toprevent,mitigate,orrectifytheconsequencesofaclientscriminalor
fraudulentactinthecommissionofwhichthelawyersserviceshavebeenorarebeing
used,butthelawyershall,wherepracticable,firstmakereasonableefforttopersuade
theclienttotakecorrectiveaction
(4)TosecurelegaladviceaboutthelawyerscompliancewiththeseRules
(5)Toestablishaclaimordefenseonbehalfofthelawyerinacontroversy
betweenthelawyerandtheclient,toestablishadefensetoacriminalchargeorcivil
claimagainstthelawyerbaseduponconductinwhichtheclientwasinvolved,orto
respondtoallegationsinanyproceedingconcerningthelawyersrepresentationofthe
clientor
(6)Tocomplywithotherlaworacourtorder.
(c)Alawyershallrevealinformationrelatingtotherepresentationofaclienttothe
extentthelawyerreasonablybelievesnecessarytopreventacriminalactthatthe
lawyerbelievesislikelytoresultinreasonablycertaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharm.
Rule1.10.ImputationofConflictsofInterest.

MarcRandazzaviolatedRule1.10inknowinglyrepresentingaclientinadversetome,
whichinthiscasewashislawfirmrepresentinghim,hiswifeandhisdaughterasclients
againstme,theirformerclient.
(a)Whilelawyersareassociatedinafirm,noneofthemshallknowinglyrepresenta
clientwhenanyoneofthempracticingalonewouldbeprohibitedfromdoingsoby
Rules1.7,1.9,or2.2,unlesstheprohibitionisbasedonapersonalinterestofthe
prohibitedlawyeranddoesnotpresentasignificantriskofmateriallylimitingthe
representationoftheclientbytheremaininglawyersinthefirm.
(b)Whenalawyerhasterminatedanassociationwithafirm,thefirmisnot
prohibitedfromthereafterrepresentingapersonwithinterestsmateriallyadverseto
47
thoseofaclientrepresentedbytheformerlyassociatedlawyerandnotcurrently
representedbythefirmunless:
(1)Thematteristhesameorsubstantiallyrelatedtothatinwhichtheformerly
associatedlawyerrepresentedtheclientand
(2)AnylawyerremaininginthefirmhasinformationprotectedbyRules1.6and
1.9(c)thatismaterialtothematter.
(c)AdisqualificationprescribedbythisRulemaybewaivedbytheaffectedclient
undertheconditionsstatedinRule1.7.
(d)Reserved.
(e)Whenalawyerbecomesassociatedwithafirm,nolawyerassociatedinthefirm
shallknowinglyrepresentapersoninamatterinwhichthatlawyerisdisqualifiedunder
Rule1.9unless:
(1)Thepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerdidnothaveasubstantialroleinor
primaryresponsibilityforthematterthatcausesthedisqualificationunderRule1.9
(2)Thepersonallydisqualifiedlawyeristimelyscreenedfromanyparticipation
inthematterandisapportionednopartofthefeetherefromand
(3)Writtennoticeispromptlygiventoanyaffectedformerclienttoenableitto
ascertaincompliancewiththeprovisionsofthisRule.
EvenifRandazzaweretooddlyprevailatclaiminghewasnotCoxsattorney,then
hewasatleastathirdpartyneutral.
Rule1.12.FormerJudge,Arbitrator,MediatororOtherThirdPartyNeutral.
(a)Exceptasstatedinparagraph(d),alawyershallnotrepresentanyonein
connectionwithamatterinwhichthelawyerparticipatedpersonallyandsubstantiallyas
ajudgeorotheradjudicativeofficer,orlawclerktosuchapersonorasanarbitrator,
mediatororotherthirdpartyneutral,unlessallpartiestotheproceedinggiveinformed
consentconfirmedinwriting.
(b)Alawyershallnotnegotiateforemploymentwithanypersonwhoisinvolvedas
apartyoraslawyerforapartyinamatterinwhichthelawyerisparticipatingpersonally
andsubstantiallyasajudgeorotheradjudicativeofficer,orasanarbitrator,mediatoror
otherthirdpartyneutral.Alawyerservingasalawclerktoajudgeorotheradjudicative
officermaynegotiateforemploymentwithapartyorlawyerinvolvedinamatterin
whichtheclerkisparticipatingpersonallyandsubstantially,butonlyafterthelawyerhas
notifiedthejudgeorotheradjudicativeofficer.
(c)Ifalawyerisdisqualifiedbyparagraph(a),nolawyerinafirmwithwhichthat
48
lawyerisassociatedmayknowinglyundertakeorcontinuerepresentationinthematter
unless:
(1)Thedisqualifiedlawyeristimelyscreenedfromanyparticipationinthe
matterandisapportionednopartofthefeetherefromand
(2)Writtennoticeispromptlygiventothepartiesandanyappropriatetribunal
toenablethemtoascertaincompliancewiththeprovisionsofthisRule.
(d)Anarbitratorselectedasapartisanofapartyinamultimemberarbitrationpanel
isnotprohibitedfromsubsequentlyrepresentingthatparty.
RandazzaADVISEDCOXonhisveryfirstconferencecallandeveninExhibit20
asperwhattodowithcourttranscripts.
MarcRandazzahastomaintainProfessionalLiabilityInsuranceandhasrepeatedly
refusedtoprovidemewiththisinformation.
AllinformationthatIhaveprovidehereistothebestofmyknowledge
CrystalL.Cox/s/
_______________
CrystalL.Cox
EXHIBIT21
SubjectRE:fromPreSeDefendantCrystalL.Cox
Frommjr@randazza.com<mjr@randazza.com>
49
ToCrystalL.Cox<savvybroker@yahoo.com>
DateFri,Dec16,2011at12:55PM
Crystal,
Iwanttoaddressafewthings:
Firstandforemost,ifyoufeelthatIdidnottreatyourespectfully,Ihumblyapologize.I
donotwishtoleavethatun
discussed.Peoplelikeyouareimportantforthefutureofcitizenjournalism,andIwish
toseeyousucceed.
Ialsowanttocorrectamisperceptionhere.IdidnottellanyonethatIrepresentedyou,
forcertain.Ididtellthe
opposingcounselthatIthoughtadealmightbebrokeredbutthatIwantedtospeakto
himfirst(totesthiswaterswith
respecttoapossiblemutuallyagreeableresolution).
Finally,Iwanttomakeitclearthatourdiscussionaboutmoneywasintermsof"costs."
IthoughtthatImadeitclear
thatmybills,myfees(myincome)wouldbewaived.AllthatIwasaskingyouabout
beingabletopaywasoutof
pocketreimbursementofexpenses.
Despitethecontentsofthisemail,IwishtoletyouknowthatIamsillwillingtolenda
handinanywayeveninthe
background.
Marc
50
EXHIBIT17
SubjectRE:fromCrystalL.Cox
DateTue,Jan17,2012at6:52AM
Crystal,
Perhapsyoujustdon'tunderstandhowdeeplyoffensiveitistomethatyouwould
registerthatwithouteventellingme,
letaloneaskingme.Youhadnorighttodothat.
Doyouthinkthatjustbybeingmypotentialclient,orevenmyactualclientthatit
somehowcreatedarightforyouto
registermynameto"protectthestory?"Don'tyouthinkthatIhavea)theabilitytodo
thatmyself,andb)therightto
decidewhetherornotyouwouldusemynameforyourownexclusiveusetotalk
aboutYOURstory?Evenifyou
thoughtthatthiswasokay,whichseemsstrangetome,whyonearthwouldyouthink
thatyoucontinuetohaveany
justificationforhavingthatdomain?
Askingmeforajob,orarecommendation?Thatdoesn'tbothermeintheleast.Infact,
ifyouhaddisplayedanyethics,
I'dbegametodoso.
But,whyonearthwouldyouthinkthatitisreasonabletotellsomeonethata)you
registeredTHEIRnameforYOUR
51

ownpurposes,andTHENb)askforajob?Itis(a)thatmakesanenemyofme.(b)is
completelyreasonable.
I'msureyoupaidafewbucksforthedomain.I'dbepleasedtoreimburseyouwhatit
costyou.But,Idonotfinditto
beacceptablethatsomeoneelsehasregisteredmynameforanypurpose.Icertainly
donotagreewith
yourjustificationfordoingitinthefirstplace.Nevertheless,anyjustificationyouMIGHT
havehaddissolvedwhenit
becamecertainthatIwasnotgoingtorepresentyou,Ihavenoconnectiontothiscase
atall,andthusIcan'tpossibly
seeanyreasonforyoutohaveanycontroloverthatdomainwhatsoeverunlessthe
purposeistosimplymakean
enemyofme.
OriginalMessage
Subject:Re:fromCrystalL.Cox
From:"CrystalL.Cox"<savvybroker@yahoo.com>
Date:Mon,January16,20126:48pm
To:"MarcJ.Randazza"<mjr@randazza.com>
HowintheworlddidImakeanenemy,Igotittoprotectthestory,andthesearchterm
asIthoughtyouweregoingtorepresentme,andwantedtocontrolthenegativityI
knewIwouldgetaboutit.That'swhatIdo,Ineverdidanythingnegativeagainstyou.
AndyoudocareofWIPO,ireadoneofyourbiothingsbragginaboutaWIPOcaseyou
wonforsomeone.
52
Nooffense..ifaskingyouforajob,ortorecommendajobmadeyouanenemy,nothing
Icandoaboutthat,certainlywasNOTmyintentioninanyway.
CrystalL.Cox
From:MarcJ.Randazza<mjr@randazza.com>
To:CrystalL.Cox<savvybroker@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday,January16,20125:59PM
Subject:Re:fromCrystalL.Cox
I'mnotinterestedinWIPO.Youwanttomakeanenemyofme,really?
MarcJohnRandazza
OnJan16,2012,at3:23PM,"CrystalL.Cox"<savvybroker@yahoo.com>wrote:
Really?WellMarc,LookatmyWIPOcasewithProskauerRose,WIPOsure
seemstothinkitsOk.Ithoughtitwasperfectlylegaltodoso.Ihaveregistered
othersnameinfaircompetitionandrealestateforyears.Iregisteredothers
namestopromotethem,sometoexposethem,andothersasinvestmentsinthe
future.Manysmartinternetmarketersregisterothersnames,itisnotillegal
Marc.SorryIupsetyou,nevermind.Iwassimplylookingforpeopletopromote
asIneedajob.Guessyoudon'tneedsuchaservice,allyouhadtodowassay
nothankyou.Iamsurethatyougettonsofspamemailsdailyaskingyouto
hirethem,wealldo.Youcouldhavejustignoredit.
53
Imanagethatnameatthistime.Andhaveanoptiontobuyitbackin6months
pendingmydiscretion.Itiscertainlynotagainstthelawtoregisterthedomain
nameofothers.
IwasProSewithmyProskauerRosecaseandIwon,havingmanyoftheir
attorneynamesasadotcom.RealfreetofilewithWIPO,andbesureandname
meinthatcaseaswellasthecurrentregisteredname,asIproudlyandsmartly
registeredthedomainname.WearehappytogotoWIPOoverit.
thereareothersbuthereisthechairmanofProskauerRose,WIPOCase
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D20110679
CrystalL.Cox
From:"mjr@randazza.com"<mjr@randazza.com>
To:CrystalL.Cox<savvybroker@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday,January16,20122:36PM
Subject:RE:fromCrystalL.Cox
Crystal,
Youhavenorighttoregisteradomainnamethatcorrespondstomyrealname.Please
handthatdomainnameovertome,andpleasedonotpresumetothinkitisokayto
registerotherpeople'snamesasdomainnames.
________________________________________
MarcJohnRandazza*
54

RandazzaLegalGroup
6525WestWarmSpringsRd.Ste.100
LasVegas,Nevada89118
TollFree:8886671113
email:mjr(at)randazza(dot)com
eFax:305.437.7662
OtherOffices:Miami,Phoenix&Toronto
http://www.randazza.com
________________________________________
*LicensedinAZ,CA,FL,MA,andNV
OriginalMessage
Subject:fromCrystalL.Cox
Date:Mon,January16,20122:30pm
To:"mjr@randazza.com"<mjr@randazza.com>
HiMarc,hopethisemailfindsyoudoingwell.WhenIthoughtwemay
worktogetheriboughthttp://www.marcrandazza.com/tocontrolthesearch,andpr
onmycase,ifyourepresentedme..Imanageitnow,asownershipiswell..adifferent
storynowduetomycurrentjudgement..
Iamconfidentwiththecase,andleavingittothehighestandbestgood..
55
Idohoweverneedtomakemoney,soIamaskingyouifyouoranyone
youknowcoulduseaverygoodsearchenginereputationmanager.Notsureifyou
everresearchedthatforyouronlinepresence..notsureofwhatyouthinkofDavid
Amanexcusingmeofextortion,thingissearchmanagementissomethingtonsof
peopledueandforthousandsamonthpersearchterm..andsowhenhesentacease
anddesistandfiledalawsuit,ioffereditasawaytosettleandnot
spendayearfighting,heturneditdown,thenayearlateraccusedmeof
acrime..itssimplynothowithappened..
Anywayifyouknowanyoneneedingaverygoodsearchengine
reputationmanagerpleaseletmeknow..
CrystalL.Cox
EXHIBIT19
SubjectRE:Discovery,SummaryJudgement,
DateWed,Dec14,2011at5:06PM
Crystal,
Ihavereviewedthefile,andIhaveponderedtheissues,andIhavedecidedthatIwill
takeyourcase.Weneedtotalkaboutsomeoftheissuesofrepresentationbefore
finalizingit.But,Iamgame.
Whencanyoutalk?
OriginalMessage
Subject:Discovery,SummaryJudgement,
56
Date:Sat,December10,20112:54pm
To:"mjr@randazza.com"<mjr@randazza.com>
EXHIBIT20
Subject[FWD:Trialtranscripts]
ToCrystalCox<savvybroker@yahoo.com>
DateThu,Dec15,2011at5:50PM
Crystal,
Seebelow.Youshoulddothisifyouwanttomoveforward.
OriginalMessage
Subject:Trialtranscripts
From:"Volokh,Eugene"<VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu>
Date:Thu,December15,201112:34pm
To:"MarcRandazza(mjr@randazza.com)"<mjr@randazza.com>
Bytheway,Iforgottosay:Ifyouthinkweshouldindeedfileamotionforanewtrial,
wellprobablyneedtranscriptsofthetrialandoftheNov.28hearing(docket#89)thats
referencedintheNov.30opinion.Italkedyesterdaytothecourtreportertoaskher
abouthertimetableandcostforthis,andshesaidthatfora1weekturnaround,the
costisabitunder$5/page,theNov.28hearingisabout30pages,andthetrialisabout
200pages,thoughshecouldomitthevoirdire,whichwouldsave3040pages.
57

Giventheturnaround,thecomingChristmasholidays,andtheearlyJanuaryduedate
forthemotionforanewtrial(Jan.5,Ithink),itwouldprobablybebesttoaskforthe
transcriptstodayifyouthinkhavingthetranscriptswouldbeusefultopreparingthe
motionforanewtrialsinceanydelaywillmeanwewontgetthemuntilDec.27orso
(giventheChristmasdaysoff).Youcanreachthecourtreporterat
nancy_walker@ord.uscourts.gov.Allthebest,
Eugene
EXHIBITV
VI.
ABUSEOFPROCESSCLAIMS1.OBSIDIANFINANCEGROUP,LLCETAL.V.
COXCASENO.3:11CV00057HZ(HEREBYFULLYINCORPORATEDBY
REFERENCEINENTIRETYHEREIN,ALLPLEADINGS,ORDERS,ETC.)1950.
ThatonJanuary2011ObsidianV.CoxwasFiledintheDistrictofOregon.51.Thatthis
caseinvolvesCrystalCox(Cox)whoisaninvestigativejournalistreportingonthe
PlaintiffsandDefendantsintheAndersonandLegallyRelatedCasesandreporting
upontheactionsandinactionsofthisCourt.52.ThatCoxhasnowalsobecomethe
targetofseveralcentralDefendantsofthisRICOandANTITRUSTLawsuitthrough
LEGALPROCESSABUSEandmore.53.ThatnowthesesameDefendantsinthis
RICOarenowinextricablyboundtotheObsidianlawsuit.19ResponseToDemandfor
SummaryJudgment.ObjectiontoSummaryJudgmentforDamages.
http://ia600403.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.ord.101036/gov.uscourts.ord.10103
6.25.0.pdf5754.
Thatuponmyknowledge,informationandbelief,TheObsidianFinanceGroupv.
CrystalCoxtrialwasinNovemberof2011andtherewasa$2.5milliondollarverdict
renderedtoCox.Atthattimeandatalltimes,Coxwastheonlynamedandserved
defendantinthatcase,theonlydefendantontrial,andtheonlydefendantajudgment
wasorderedagainst.55.
ThatsixmonthsafterajudgmentwasissuedagainstCoxinthecase,whichisnowon
appealwiththefamedFirstAmendmentRightsAttorneyatLawandProfessorEugene
58
Volokh,Esq.,ProfessoratUCLASchoolofLawwhoisrepresentingCox,attemptswere
madetoaddPlaintiffBernsteinviaaSupplementalMotiontotheObsidianlawsuitasa
defendantandhavehimaddedtothe2.5MillionDollarJudgmentineffect.Afterthe
casewasalreadydecidedandwherePlaintiffwasnoteverbeforeaparty.2056.
ThatseveralhoursafterthefilingofthisSupplementalComplainttheJudgestruckit
fromtherecord,asindicatedintheDocketreportbelow.05/11/2012136STRICKEN
perorderof5/11/2012.SupplementalComplaint.(statutoryfeeexemptstatusselected)
JuryTrialRequested:Yes.FiledbyObsidianFinanceGroup,LLC,KevinD.Padrick
againstAllDefendants.(Aman,David)Modifiedon5/11/2012(mr).(Entered:
05/11/2012)05/11/2012137STRICKENperorderof5/11/2012.ProposedSummonsto
EliotBernsteinFiledbyAllPlaintiffs.(Aman,David)Modifiedon5/11/2012(mr).
(Entered:05/11/2012)05/11/2012138ORDER:STRIKINGthesupplementalcomplaint
136andproposedsummons137forfailuretocomplywithFRCP15(d)whichrequires
thatthepartyseekingtofileasupplementalcomplaintdosobymotion.Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(d)seealsoConnectu,LLCv.Zuckerberg,522F.3d82,90(1stCir.2008)
(supplementalcomplaintcannotbefiledasamatterofcourse).20SUPPLEMENTAL
COMPLAINT(FRAUDULENTTRANSFER)
http://ia600403.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.ord.101036/gov.uscourts.ord.10103
6.136.0.pdf58
Inanymotionforleavetofileasupplementalcomplaint,plaintiffsarerequestedto
thoroughlyaddress,withrelevantauthority,thefollowingissues:(1)thisCourt's
jurisdictionoverthemattergiventhataNoticeofAppealhasbeenfiled(2)whethera
supplementalcomplaintisallowedpostjudgment(3)whytheallegedfraudulent
transferclaimshouldberaisedinasupplementalcomplaintasopposedtobringingitin
anewaction.OrderedbyJudgeMarcoA.Hernandez.Copyofthisorderemailedand
mailedtodefendantCrystalCox.(mr)(Entered:05/11/2012)57.
Thatuponmyknowledge,informationandbelief,theDistrictofOregoncourtbyJudge
MarcoHernandez(Hernandez)withinhoursdeniedthisFRAUDULENTattempttoadd
Bernsteinasadefendantinthelawsuitafterthefactandyetthisrevealsanother
instanceofattemptedFraudonthatCourtthroughAbuseofProcessbythesecriminals
disguisedasAttorneysatLawineffortstosecureajudgmentagainstPlaintiffand
furtherdefameandharasshim.
However,despitethisattemptbeingdeniedbythatCourt,Plaintiffnowappearstobea
defendantonthedocketofthatlawsuit,despiteneverhavingbeenadefendantinthe
59
caseoreverbeingservedinthesuitandthisactstodefameanddamagePlaintiff
despitetherulingtostrikePlaintiffasadefendant.
AnyonelookingupthecaseforexampleatPacerseesPlaintiffasadefendantandmay
presumetheJudgmentwasrenderedagainsthimtoo.Thatthisconstitutesfurther
RICOactsagainstPlaintiffinharassinghimthroughfurtherAbuseofProcessandmore.
58.Thatuponmyknowledge,informationandbelief,theDistrictofOregoncourt
strikinglyhoweverfailedtodocketasinglecounterdefendantsuedbyCoxinher
countercomplaintandyetmadesuretogetPlaintiffcenterstagebillingonthedocket
forsuchabriefappearance.5959.
Thatuponmyknowledge,informationandbelief,DavidS.Aman(Aman)isalawyer
withTonkonTorpLawFirm(TT)inPortlandOregon.AmaniscounselforObsidian
FinanceGroupandKevinD.Padrick(Padrick),inthelegalactionObsidianFinance
Groupv.CrystalCox.(DistrictofOregon3:11cv00057HZ).
AmanwasinvolvedintheSummitbankruptcyinwhichCox,aninvestigativeblogger
hadbeenreportingonforthreeyears.Amanwasnamedinanobjectiontothefees
legalactionfiledbyStephanieStudebakerDeYoung(DeYoung),andotherSummit
bankruptcyinvestorsandcreditors.AmandeposedCoxssource,theSummit
bankruptcywhistleblowerDeYoungyearspriortoObsidianFinanceGroupv.Crystal
Cox,andknewtherolethatCoxplayedinthereportingoftheSummitbankruptcycase.
AmanfiledalegalactionagainstCoxfor10milliondollars,onbehalfofPadrick,
bankruptcytrustee.Thislegalactionwastoshutdowntheblogsofinvestigativeblogger
Cox,astheseblogsexposedthedetailsofa$40milliondollarOregonbankruptcy.
TheseblogsalsoexposeandlinktothedetailsoftheIviewitcompaniesIntellectual
PropertytheftsandwhollycoverthisRICOlawsuitandtherelatedlawsuits.Theblogs
alsotietheinvolvementofTTclientsEnronandIntelandwherePlaintiffallegesthat
attemptedtheftsofPlaintiffsIntellectualPropertiesweretheprimaryreasonbywhich
EnroncollapsedthroughtheirEnronBroadbandDivisionandledtoArthurAndersens
collapse,aspleadedpreviouslytothisCourt.60.
Thatuponmyknowledge,informationandbelief,inDecemberof2011,afteraphone
conferencewithCox,PornIndustryAttorneyMarcMarcoJ.Randazza(Randazza)
60ofRandazzaLegalGroup(RLG)begannegotiatingadealwithAman,attorneyfor
Obsidian.RandazzahadnoagreementwithCoxtorepresentherandwasattemptingto
stopCoxfromappealingObsidianv.CoxtotheNinthCircuit.Randazzaallegedly
60
conspiredwithAmantonegotiateadealtostoptheappeal,anddidnotevertellCox
whatthedetailsofthisnegotiationwere.
CoxlaterfoundoutfromanotherattorneyofthefirstamendmentbarofRandazzas
actions.RandazzahadtoldmembersofthebarthatherepresentedCoxinthematterof
herappeal,andsootherAttorneysatLawstayedawayfromCox.
RandazzasbackdoordealingsandnegotiationswereexposedbyUCLAprofessor
EugeneVolokhtoCoxandVolokhhasnowbecomeCoxscounsel,retainedunder
contractwithMayerBrownforherappeal.
61.Thatuponmyknowledge,informationandbelief,inretaliation,earlyin2012,
RandazzaofRLG,conspiredwithAttorneyAman,tosetCoxupforthecrimeof
Extortion.Amaninitiatedthisdefamatorycampaignwithanemailoutofcontexttothe
NewYorkTimesthatwasoneemailoutof5inasettlementnegotiationwithCox.
AmanandRandazzaconspiredtodiscreditanddefameCoxandtogetherconvinced
JudgeHernandezthatextortionhadbeencommittedandfromthere,theworldthrough
BigMediaandlegalbloggersranwiththestorythatCoxhadextortedthem,thoughno
extortioncomplaintwaseverfiledagainsther,noranychargeofsuchintheircomplaint
againsther.
Allegedly,RandazzaassistedAmaninattemptingtoseizeblogsanddomainnames
andshutdownthereportingofCox,byfilingmotionsforareceivernamedLara
Pearson61whomRandazzahadusedbeforeintheRighthavencases.Thisreceiver
wastotakedomainnamesandblogsofCoxanddomainnamesbelongingtoPlaintiff.
62.
Thataftergainingthisillgotten,erroneousandunconstitutionaljudgment,TTAttorney
atLawAmanandPadrickthenconspiredwithjournalistsfortheNewYorkTimes,
Forbesandothers,topublishstoriesthatwouldusethisjudgmenttodiscreditand
defamePlaintiffandCoxfurtherbyfalselycreatinganappearancethattheywere
involvedandconvictedforcriminalactivitiesandmore.2.
OBSIDIANFINANCEGROUPLLCANDKEVINDPADRICKVSCRYSTALCOX
CASENUMBER:2:2012MC00017,FILEDNOVEMBER21,2012,WASHINGTON
EASTERNDISTRICTCOURT,SPOKANEOFFICE,PRESIDINGJUDGE:JAMESP.
HUTTON63
.
61
ThatoninformationandbeliefthiscaseisrelatedmattertotheObsidiancaseabove,
althoughthereasonforthiscaseremainsunknown.3.WORLDINTELLECTUAL
PROPERTYORG(WIPO)
(CT)D20110675COMPLAINANTPROSKAUER
ROSEV.COXANDBERNSTEIN(HEREBYFULLYINCORPORATEDBY
REFERENCEINENTIRETYHEREIN,ALLCOMPLAINTS,SUBMISSIONS,RULINGS,
DETERMINATIONS,ETC.)64.
ThatonApril2011ProskauerRosefiledaWIPOComplaintagainstCoxandagain
Plaintiffisinsertedthroughoutthecases,WIPOCaseNumbers,(TG)D20110678,(CT)
D20110679,(CT)D20110677,(CT)D20110675.65.
ThatRICOCentralConspiratorDefendantProskauerfilesthisWIPOactioninan
attempttoscrubthewebofCoxswebsitesbyseizingandshuttingdownhersitesand
domains62thatcontainnewsarticlesthatreportandinvestigatethisRICOLawsuitand
theLegallyRelatedlawsuits.66.ThatProskauerlosttoCoxintheseWIPOactions.67.
ThatProskauerhadattemptedtochooseapanelist,aoneAttorneyatLawPeterL.
Michaelson(Michaelson)toheartheseWIPOactionswhointheendhoweverwas
disqualifiedforunknownreasonsatthattime.
ThatlaterPlaintifflearnedthatMichaelsoniswhollyconflictedwith,includingbutnot
limitedto,DefendantsinthisRICOProskauer,Rubenstein,JudithKaye,MPEGand
otherDefendants,howtypicalofProskauertotryandslipaconflictin.68.ThatDawn
Osbornealsorecusedherselffromthisactionforunknownreasonsatthistime.69.
Thatthedecisionsinthismattercanbefoundatthefollowingurls,Defendant
ProskauersJosephLeccesev.CrystalCox
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D20110679Defendant
ProskauersAllenFaginv.CrystalCox
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D20110678
Defendant/CounselforProskauer/ProSeCounselGreggM.Mashbergv.CrystalCox
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D20110677ProskauerRose
LLPv.LeslieTurner(CoxwasRespondent)63
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D201106754.
CZECHARBITRATIONCOURT
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEEDINGNO.
100472
(HEREBYFULLYINCORPORATEDBYREFERENCEIN
ENTIRETYHEREIN,ALLCOMPLAINTS,SUBMISSIONS,RULINGS,
DETERMINATIONS,ETC.)70.
62

ThatSelfAcclaimedPornIndustryAttorneyatLaw,Randazza,filescomplaintswith
thisinternationalintellectualpropertyagencyinattemptstoseizedomainnamesfrom
CoxthathavehisnameintheURLandhavemanylinkstothisRICOandsuppressher
blogsandatthesametimedefameherandPlaintiff.71.
ThatonJune2012RandazzafiledaCZECHComplaintagainstCoxandPlaintiff.The
CzechArbitrationCourtcaseworkerwasTerezaBartoskova.
TheCzechArbitrationCourtcasenumberwasAdministrativeproceedingNo.100472.
ThisdomainnamedisputewasfiledbyRandazza.
ItwasfiledagainstCoxandagainPlaintiffwasinsertedandthenwithoutnoticethis
casewaswithdrawnasCoxpreparedandfiledherresponse.CzechArbitrationCourt
caseAdministrativeProceedingNo.100472isherebyincludedasevidenceintothis
case,initsentirety,includingbutnotlimitedto,alldocuments,emails,filings,answers,
phonerecordsandallinformationinthiscase.72.
CzechArbitrationCourtcaseAdministrativeproceedingNo.100472wascancelledafter
monthsofdocumentandexhibitsubmissionsbyRandazzaaswellasRespondent.
Coxsanswerwasfiled.RandazzadidnotnotifyRespondents,PlaintiffandCoxthathe
hadwithdrawnthecomplaint.
Randazzathen,atsomepointafterthis,andwithnoreasonastowhytheCzechcase
wascancelled,filedaWIPODisputewiththesameclaims.InJuly642012,Randazza
filedaWIPOComplaintagainstCoxandagain,Plaintiffisinsertedfromstarttofinish.5.
WORLDINTELLECTUALPROPERTYORG(WIPO)
(EP)D20121525
(COMPLAINANTMARCRANDAZZA)(HEREBYFULLYINCORPORATEDBY
REFERENCEINENTIRETYHEREIN,ALLCOMPLAINTS,SUBMISSIONS,
RULINGS,DETERMINATIONS,ETC.
)73.
ThatthiscomplaintwasneverservedonPlaintiffandnoresponsewastenderedinhis
defenseofthismatter,whichfalselyaccusesanddefamesPlaintiff,statinghehas
committedExtortionandmore.74.
Thatadecisionwasreachedbyaonepersonpanelist,thistimeamazinglyby
Michaelson,theyveryguyDefendantProskauertriedtohaveintheirWIPOcomplaints
63
butwasrefused,nowignoreshisconflicts,whichprecludedhisinvolvementinthe
ProskauerWIPOactionlistedaboveandjumpsrightin.
MichaelsondeniesrepeatedformalwrittenrequestsbyCoxfordisclosureofconflicts
andfailstoaffirmordeny.Michaelsonthenmakesdeterminationsinthematterthat
outrightaccusesPlaintiffandCoxofthecriminalactofExtortionandmore,whichthen
goesontobePublishedinMAJORNEWSPUBLICATIONS,defamingandharassing
CoxandPlaintiffandaccusingthempublicallyinOfficialProceedingsandthePressof
crimestheyhadneverbeenaccusedortriedfor.
SoundseerilysimilartotheclaimsofCelaniintheECCarticleswhenreferencingthose
whoweresetupintentionallyforcrimesthatwere100%bogus.75.ThatPlaintiffhad
neverbeenchargedatthattimeoranytimewithextortioninacriminalorcivilmatter,
norhasheeverbeenaccused,prosecutedortriedforsuchcrimebutwith65
Michaelsonsdecisionclaimingsuchfalseandfabricatedaccusations,afalsemedia
campaignwasbolsteredbyanillegallyrendereddecisionandwordspreadpurposely
andfromasmallsparkawildfireofdefamatorypresshasensued.76.
ThatCoxhasfiledaRICOandaDefamationlawsuitandPlaintiffwillsoonfollow
againstallthoseinvolved.77.
ThatWIPOhasnolegalcapacitytoruleoncriminalmattersortoallegepublicallyina
decisionthatanyoneisactingcriminallybasedontheirfindings,withoutthatperson
beingfoundguiltybythepropercriminalauthorities,yetthisisexactlywhathappened,
againillustratinganotherabuseofprocessthatdefamesPlaintiff.78.
ThatagaintheWIPOpanelistthatmakesthesedefamatoryclaimsisconflictedto
DefendantsinthisRICOProskauerRose,KennethRubenstein,MPEG,JudithKaye
andothers,asfullyexhibitedinCoxsfilingsintheaction,andwherebyallfilingsofthis
WIPOcomplaintareherebyincorporatedinentiretybyreferenceherein.79.
ThatintheWIPOdecisionbyMichaelson,hequotesfromDavidCarrofTheNewYork
Timesinapublishedarticle21,"Ms.Cox,whocallsherselfaninvestigativeblogger,
hasabroadrangeofconspiratorial/journalisticinterests.
ShehaswrittenthatBruceSewell,thegeneralcounselofApple,aidsandabets
criminalsthatJeffreyBewkes,theChiefExecutiveofTimeWarner,isaproven
technologythiefandthatvariousProskauerRoselawyershaveengagedinapattern
ofconspiracy,inordertomakeCoxlooknotcredibleinreportingonBruceSewell,
64
GeneralCounselofDefendantApple,former21
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/business/media/whentruthsurvivesfreespeech.ht
ml?pagewanted=all&_r=066
GeneralCounselofDefendantIntelandonDefendantTimeWarnerInc.,BOTHwho
aredirectlyinvolvedintheiViewitcase.
Thereby,DavidCarroftheNewYorkTimesisfoundusing"bigmedia"thatiswell
trustedbythepublic,inordertodiscredittheiViewItTechnologystory,thisRICO
LawsuitandtheLegallyRelatedlawsuitsandactstofurtherdefameandslander
Plaintiff.80.
ThatRandazzathroughtheaidofNewYorkAttorneyMichaelsonactinginconflictand
whouponbeingrepeatedlyrequestedtoaffirmordenyconflictsbyCoxfailstoeither
confirmordenyhisconflictswithKennethRubenstein,MPEGLA,andExSupreme
CourtJudgeJudithKay.
ThatMichaelsoninessenceframesPlaintiffandCoxwithchargesofExtortionthrough
misuseofaninternationalagencyandfurtherillegallyseizesdomainsandIntellectual
PropertiesofPlaintiffandCox.81.
ThatMichaelson,WIPOsolePanelistinthedecision,frames,defamesandslanders
PlaintiffandCoxinaninternationallypublisheddomainnameandintellectualproperty
decisionofWIPO,"AftertheComplainantchallengedheruseofallthedisputeddomain
names,theRespondentofferedtheComplainantherfeebasedreputation
managementservicesthroughwhichtheRespondentwouldcleanuptheGoogle
searchengineresultsregardingtheComplainantandtherebyimprovethe
Complainantsonlinereputation,presumablybyeliminatinghercommentaryand
ceasingfurtheruseofthedisputeddomainnames.
Hergeneralconductinthatregard,thoughaimedagainstothersthantheComplainant,
isdiscussedinvariousnewsarticles,acopyofwhichappearinAnnexesM,N,O,and
PtotheComplaint.Specifically,asreportedinWhenTruthSurvivesFreeSpeech,The
NewYorkTimes,BusinessDayMediaandAdvertising,September11,201167(a
copyofthisarticleappearsinAnnexMtotheComplaint),theauthorstates:...Ms.
Cox,whocallsherselfaninvestigativeblogger,hasabroadrangeof
conspiratorial/journalisticinterests.
65
ShehaswrittenthatBruceSewell,thegeneralcounselofApple,aidsandabets
criminalsthatJeffreyBewkes,thechiefexecutiveofTimeWarnerisaproven
technologythiefandthatvariousProskauerRoselawyershaveengagedinapattern
ofconspiracy....Whenevershegetsinafightwithsomeone,shefrequentlyresponds
bycreatingadomainwiththepersonsname,someallegationofcorruption,orboth...
InordertooptimizevisibilitytoWebCrawlers,sheoftenusesthefullnameandtitleof
hertarget,andherWebsitesarefilledwithlinkstoherothersitestoimprovetheir
searchranking.Shehassome500URLsatherdisposalandshesnotafraidtouse
them."82.
ThatMichaelson,WIPOsolePanelist,MarcJ.Randazzav.ReverendCrystalCox,Eliot
Bernstein,CaseNo.D20121525,States,"Fourth,RespondentCoxexhibitedbadfaith
intransferringownershipofsomeofthedisputeddomainnamestoRespondent
Bernstein,whomerelyservedasaproxyoftheformer,inanattempttoevadeliability
(viasocalledcyberflight)underthePolicy."Thisisentrapment,asPlaintiffreceived
domainnamesinreceivershipandpartofnocyberflight,andPlaintiffwasnot,norisnot
nowaProxy.6.
WORLDINTELLECTUALPROPERTYORG(WIPO)
(TG)D20110678
(COMPLAINANTMARCRANDAZZA)83.Thatoninformationandbeliefthiscase
isrelatedmattertotheRandazzaWIPOcaseabove.687.WORLDINTELLECTUAL
PROPERTYORG(WIPO)
(CT)D20110679(COMPLAINANTMARC
RANDAZZA)84.
ThatoninformationandbeliefthiscaseisrelatedmattertotheRandazzaWIPOcase
above.8.WORLDINTELLECTUALPROPERTYORG(WIPO)
(CT)D2011
0677(COMPLAINANTMARCRANDAZZA)85.Thatoninformationandbeliefthiscase
isrelatedmattertotheRandazzaWIPOcaseabove.699.
RANDAZZAETALV.COX,BERNSTEINETAL.,CASENO.2:12CV
02040GMNPAL(HEREBYFULLYINCORPORATEDBYREFERENCEINENTIRETY
HEREIN,ALLPLEADINGS,ORDERS,ETC.)22AND2386.
ThatonNovember28th,2012RandazzaofRLG,formerAttorneyofCox,nowfiles
DistrictofNevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPALagainsthisformerclientCoxand
allegedlyagainstPlaintiffdirectly.87.
ThatonNovember30th,2012,theWIPOdecisionagainstCoxandPlaintiffobtained
throughtheconflictsofinterestofMichaelsonisthenusedtosupporttheallegations
66
againstCoxandPlaintifftotheNevadacourtasevidenceoftheircriminalacts,allthe
22DocketLink
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.
docket.html23RecentFilingLinksRandazzaV.Cox
79.0.pdfCOXSMOTIONFORINSURANCEDOCUMENTATION
115.0.pdfOPPOSITIONTODEFENDANTCRYSTALCOXSMOTIONFOR
INSURANCEDOCUMENTATION
117.0.pdfCoxReplytoOppositiontoDefendantsMotionforInsuranceDocumentation
119.0.pdfMOTIONFORCASEMANAGEMENTCONFERENCEPURSUANTTO
NEVADALOCALRULE161(d)
118.0.pdfCoxResponseOppositiontoDefendantsMotionforCaseManagement
Conference
120.0.pdfMotiontoReconsiderCounterComplaintDismissalandleavetoamend
countercomplainttomeetcourtspecifications
116.0.pdf70whilecontinuingthedefamationthatPlaintiffandCoxarenowguiltyofthe
crimeofextortionandmore.88.
ThatPlaintiffhasrecentlylearnedthathemayalsobeadefendantinthissuit.While
Plaintiffhasnotbeenlegallyservedthiscomplaint,itappearsfromthePacerlistingthat
onceagainPlaintiffhasbeenaddedtoacomplaintwithoutpropernoticeorserviceand
accordingtothedocketjudgmentshavebeenenteredagainsthim.89.Thatonceagain,
DefendantsofthisRICO&ANTITRUSTareinvolvedinthisactionagainstCoxandnow
apparentlyPlaintiffdirectlyasaDefendant,includingbutnotlimitedto,Defendant
GreenbergTraurigwhonowshowsup.90.ThatJudgeGloriaNavarro(Navarro),in
DistrictofNevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPALstated,"TheDomainNamesatissue
inthiscasewereregisteredbyDefendantCrystalCoxsomeofwhichwerelistedunder
proxy,DefendantEliotBernstein
TheFootnoteinregardtothisstatementreferstoRandazzamakingthisclaimtoJudge
Navarroasfact.(DocketEntry14,Page2of12).91.
67
ThatPlaintiffwasnota"proxy"andthereforeJudgeNavarrodefamedPlaintiffin
claimingthistobeafactandthereforethisbecamepartofarulingtoseizeIntellectual
PropertiesofbothCoxandPlaintiff,whichwasexposingthoseinvolvedinthisRICO
andtheLegallyRelatedlawsuits.
FortheNavarrotoclaimPlaintiffisa"proxy"inthissituationistosuggestcriminal
activityandthatPlaintiffwasaidingCoxinhidingalleged"assets",yetanothercriminal
allegationandthereforeuponmyknowledgeandbelief,thisrepresentsalleged
entrapmentandcriminalconspiracybetweenJudgeNavarroandRandazza.
92.ThatNavarro,inDistrictofNevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPALthroughan
unlawful,unconstitutionalTRO,Preliminaryinjunction,removedonlinenewssitesthat
containedinvestigativereportingregardingtheIviewitcompaniesandtheunethical
actionofRandazzaviathisabuseofprocess.93.
ThatNavarro,inDistrictofNevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPAL,DocketEntry14
grantedRandazzaamassofdomainnames,withnodueprocesstoPlaintifforCoxand
Navarroalsostatesonpage6andinthefootnotesthat"Defendants"(thisincludes
Plaintiff),isguiltyofacquiringdomainnames,intellectualpropertyin"badfaith"and
discussestheofferingofadomainnamethatallegedlyhadadversecontentonit
regardingRandazza,whichisfalseinformationandisalsoentrapmenttosuggest
"Defendants"areinconspiracyina"badfaith"extortionscheme.
ThesearecriminalallegationsbyNavarroinaCivilCase,cleverlydesignedtodiscredit,
defameandharassPlaintiffandInvestigativeBloggerCoxwhoisreportingonthe
Iviewitstory,thisLawsuitandtheRelatedLawsuits.94.
ThatNavarro,inDistrictofNevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPAL,DocketEntry14,
page8,accusesPlaintiffofcyberextortion,whichiscriminal.JudgeNavarroisnot
"Immune"fromprosecutionforthesefalseallegationsinjudicialrulingsbasedupon
materiallyfalseinformationregardingcrimesthatwerenevercommitted,prosecutedor
triedandwheretherehasbeennoprosecutionorchargesofsuchcrimesagainst
Plaintiff72andCox.
Therefore,thesedecisionsappearintendedsolelytodefameandharassPlaintiffand
CoxfurtheranddiscredittheiViewitcompanies,thisRICOlawsuitandtheLegally
Relatedcases.95.ThatPage1,Document41,DistrictofNevadaCase
2:12cv02040GMNPAL,isaRuling,whichalsoaccusesPlaintiffofbeinga"proxy",
whichisacriminalallegation.Document41alsograntsRandazzaaPreliminary
68
InjunctionthatviolatestheFirstAmendmentRightsofPlaintiffandCox,asitremoves
massiveonlinecontentwithoutFirstAmendmentadjudicationfirst,goingwhollyin
oppositeoflongstandingprecedence.96.
ThatDistrictofNevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPAL,DocketEntry39Grantsa
DefaultJudgmentagainstPlaintiffwhomhasneverbeenlegallyservedinthiscaseor
receivedanycommunicationsfromthisNevadacourt.97.
ThatitappearsthatRonaldGreen(Green)ofRLG,whoatthetimeoffilingthis
complaintagainstCoxandBernstein,hadjustrecentlyjumpedfromworkingat
DefendantGreenbergTraurigslawfirm(intheintellectualpropertygroupnoless)to
RLG,justintimetoprepareinundisclosedconflict,thepurportedservicepapersserved
inthislawsuittoPlaintiff.98.
ThatRoxanneGrinage(Grinage)washiredandretainedbyPlaintifftoperformlegal
servicesforPlaintiff.GrinagewasunderretainedlegalcontractwithPlaintiffand
Grinagewasgivenproprietary,confidential,privilegedinformationinthisprocess,
regardingthehighlycomplexdetailsoftheiViewitcompanies,includingbutnotlimited
73to,informationregardingintellectualproperties,highlysensitiveandconfidential
informationrelatedtobusinessnegotiationsandfederal,stateandinternational
investigationinformationandalllegalactionsPlaintiffisinvolvedin.99.
Thatasaprudentstandardofpractice,Grinageatherrequestwascopiedinemailsto
executivesoftechnologycompaniesPlaintiffwasnegotiatingwithandotherimportant
legalcommunications,asshewasundercontractwithPlaintiffandperformingrelated
tasksandlegalcontractworkforPlaintiffonthesecontacts.Itwasimportanttokeep
Grinageinthecommunicationloopinthesematters,astheypertainedtopastand
futurelegalworkinwhichGrinagewasundercontracttoperformforPlaintiff.100.That
inonesuchseriesofconfidentialemailcommunication,regardingcommunicationswith
AppleexecutivesSteveDowlingandBruceSewell,regardingawebsiteownedby
Plaintiff,www.stevedowling.comthatcontainedinformationregardingPlaintiffs
complainttotheSECregardingSewellandIntelwhilehewasGeneralCounselatIntel
andnotifyingDowlingwhohadreleasedanApplepressreleaseannouncingSewells
arrivalatAppleofSewellsinvolvementintheTechnologyTheftsofPlaintiffwhileat
DefendantIntelandtheSECcomplaintfiledagainstIntelnamingSewell.101.
ThatDowlinghadcontactedPlaintifftoseeifhewouldsellhimbackthewebsite
www.stevedowling.comandwherePlaintiffbelievesthatSewellwasbehindthiscall
69
attemptingtoentrapPlaintiffintoanextortionschemewherePlaintiffwouldextort
Dowlingwithsomeextremenumberorelse.
However,noneofthathappenedasPlaintiffofferednoamountandnoorelsebut
ratherPlaintiffusedtheopportunity74insteadtogivenoticetoAppleexecutiveDowling
thatAppleandIntelwereDefendantsintheAmendedComplaintandwouldbesuedin
allforthcominglegalactionsandalsogiveformalnoticethatApplewasinfringingon
PlaintiffsPatentSuspended/Pendingtechnologiesandthatheshouldimmediately
notifyAppleshareholdersoftheirliabilitiesorPlaintiffwouldbeforcedtonotifytheSEC
andothersoftheirfailuretoaccountproperlyforliabilitiesunderFASBandmore.
Finally,PlaintiffnotifiedDowlingthathewasnowabsolutelyawareofthelingering
liabilitiesoveradecadeofuseofPlaintiffstechnologiesafterreviewingthecontentsof
www.stevedowling,comthathewasattemptingtopurchasefromPlaintiff.102.
ThatPlaintiffthanbeganaseriesoffollowupemailswithDowlingandSewellto
negotiateapossiblelicensedealwithApplethatwouldsettletheinfringementand
removethemfromthecivilRICOactionandfuturelegalactionsandtherebyavoidthe
necessityofreportingthesemajorliabilitiestotheirshareholdersandothers.103.
ThatPlaintiffcopiedGrinageintheseemailcommunicationswithApple,asthiswasa
standardofpracticeinordertokeepGrinageuptospeedregardingtheongoing
communicationsandnegotiationsasshehadrequested.
Grinage,acopiedrecipientontheemailsfromPlaintiffthensuddenlyandforunknown
reasonsbeganacampaigntosabotageanddefamebothPlaintiffandCoxinthe
ongoingnegotiationswithAPPLEexecutivesthatwerecrucialtoiViewitcompanies
investorsandiViewitcompaniesinventors,derailingpossiblesettlementtalksregarding
theissuescontainedinthese75confidentialemailsbysuddenlyinterjectingherselfinto
thenegotiationsfraughtwithallegationsofcriminalactsbyPlaintiffandCox.104.
ThatPlaintiffalsocopiedinthisseriesofemailcommunicationsinvestigativeblogger
Cox,whohadbeenreportingontheiViewitstoryfor3yearsandhadpostedablogon
thewebsitewww.stevedowling.com,notifyingDowlingoftheliabilitiesassociatedwith
SewellandApple.105.
ThatGrinagethensuddenlyandwithoutwarningbeganreplyingtothecopiedrecipients
inamassivebreachofcontractandwithoutconferencewithPlaintifforCoxprior.
70
TheserepliesbyGrinagetothosesameAppleexecutives,attorneysandofficials
involvedinthisconfidentiallegalcommunicationattacked,defamed,anddiscredited
PlaintiffandCox,statingthattheywererunninganextortionplotagainstApple
executivesandothersandotherdefamatoryandslanderousaccusations.Accusations
thatsuddenlyturnupinanumberofthelegalprocessabusecasescitedherein.106.
ThatafterthisseriesofeventsPlaintiffimmediatelyceasedworkingwithGrinagewho
thensoughtretaliationbyconspiringfurtheragainstPlaintiffandCoxwithDefendant
RandazzatofurtherdefameandharassPlaintiffandCoxthroughbroadcasted
messagesmakingwildallegationsofcriminalactivityagainstPlaintiff,againallegations
thathavenofactualbasis.107.
CoxnamedGrinageinhercountercomplaintfiledinRandazzav.Cox(Districtof
NevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPAL)thatwasdismissedbythatCourtwithout
properadjudication,despiteGrinageacceptingserviceandpreparingtoanswerthe76
complaintasGrinagehadsentnoticetoCoxandallthoseinvolvedinRandazzav.Cox,
exceptofcoursePlaintiff,ofheranticipatedresponseandcounterresponsetoCoxs
filedcountercomplaint.
GrinagealsosentcertifiedmotionstotheDistrictofNevadaCourtofJudgeNavarro,to
enterintothecaseandtherebyprovingheracceptanceofserviceinthatlawsuit.
Howeverandsuspiciously,thismotionbyGrinageandtheaccompanyingdocuments
shefiledwereneverplacedontheRandazzav.Coxdocketorenteredintotherecord,
infact,GrinagewasnotevenenteredasCounterDefendantinthedocketorcase.
ImmediatelyafterGrinagesfilingsJudgeNavarrodismissedCox'scountercomplaintall
together,denyinghertherighttocountersueanddenyingGrinagesrighttoanswer.
108.CoxthennamedGrinageasadefendantinanewsuitthatCoxwasorderedby
Navarrotofileinsubstituteofthedeniedcountercomplaint,allegingthatGrinageis
actinginconspiracytodefameandharassPlaintiffandCoxwithotherdefendants
namedinherRICOandthisRICO.10.COXVS.RANDAZZA,ETAL.NEVADARICO
CASENO.2:13CV00297JCMVCFCHANGEDTO
2:13CV00297JCM(NJK)
CHANGEDTO2:13CV00297MMDVCF(HEREBYFULLYINCORPORATEDBY
REFERENCEINENTIRETYHEREIN,ALLPLEADINGS,ORDERS,ETC.)24109.
ThatonFebruary24th2013,CoxfiledDistrictofNevada2:13cv00297MMDVCF.
ThatthislawsuitisrelatedtothelawsuitaboveinNevadaasitactsasCoxscounter24
DocketLink@
71
docket.html77complaintinthatlawsuit,yetCoxwasprohibitedfromfilingacounter
complaintinthatlawsuitandOrderedbythejudgetofileasaseparateaction?110.
ThatmanyofthedefendantsinthatcaseareagainthesameasthoseinthisRICO
lawsuit,includingbutnotlimitedto(boldednamesarecommondefendants)AOLInc.,
APPLE,DavidS.Aman,MarkBennett,SeanBoushie,MT,DavidW.Brown,Brown,
WhiteandNewhouseLawFirm,MartinCain,JohnCalkins,DavidCarr,BernieCassidy
MT,DougChey,TracyL.Coenen,CorbinFisher,JenniferDeWolfPaine,Steve
Dowling,DianaDuke,DylanEnergy,RoyceEngstrom,MT,AllenFagin,ForbesInc.,
FreeSpeechCoalition,BobGarfield,GodaddyInc.,RonaldD.Green,Greenberg
TraurigLawFirm,ScottHGreenfield,JessicaGriffin,RoxanneGrinage,TaylorKai
GroenkeMT,FrancisGurry,JudgeMarcoHernandez,KashmirHill,HireLyrics,Intel
Corp.,JasonJones,EdwardKWAKWA,StephenP.Lamont[P.StephenLamont],
JosephLecesse,LibertyCapital,LibertyInteractive,LibertyMediaHoldings,JohnC.
Malone,ManwinBusinessCorporation,GreggoryMashberg,ProskauerRose,NY,
DouglasMelamed,PeterL.Michaelson,CarlosMiller,MobileStreamsInc.,Michael
Morgan,MotorolaMobilityInc.,MotorolaSolutionsInc.,MultnomahCountySheriffs
Office,LeoM.Mulvihill,Mulvihill&RushieLLC,NPRNewYorkPublicRadio,Judge
GloriaM.Navarro,NewYorkTimes,NY,ObsidianFinanceGroup,OregonStateBar
Bulletin,KevinDPadrick,
BobParsons,AZ,PhillyLawBlog,PopeHat.com,ProskauerRoseLawFirm,MarcJ.
Randazza,NV,RandazzaLegalGroup,JanineRobben,StevenRodgers,Marshall
Ross,KennethRubenstein,JordanRushie,Bret78Sewell,BruceSewell,Daniel
Staton,Synaptics,TimeWarnerCableInc.,TimeWarnerInc.,SeanTompkins,Tonkon
TorpLawFirm,MatthewM.Triggs,EricTurkewitz,TurkewitzLawFirm,Universityof
Montana,TimVawter,MarkVena,WIPO,DavidWang,KennethP.White,Michael
Whiteacre,EricWilbers,StevenWilkerandXBIZ"111.ThatinefforttosuppressCoxs
righttofileacountercomplaint,knowingofherimpoverishedcondition,acondition
whollycausedfromtheseAbuseofProcessLawsuitsfiledtoHarassandDefameher
andstripherofhersitesthatexposetheCriminalCartelandforcehertobankruptcy
throughjudgmentsgarneredthroughFraudonthatCourt.JudgeGloriaNavarroeven
hasissuedarulingthatCoxhadtofileabrandnewlawsuitforthecountercomplaint.
ThelegalrationaleforthisOrderwasthatCoxscountercomplaintaddressedthe
ongoingconspiracyagainstCoxduetoherpublicationsinrelationtotheAnderson
lawsuitandthisRICOlawsuit.Itshouldbenotedherethatthereareanoverabundance
ofrelatedDefendantsinbothofCoxscasesandCoxprovidesexcellentlinkageforthis
Courttodetermineexactlywhoandhowtheyhaverelatedtoconspireagainsther
72
rights,throughalmostidenticalObstructionofJusticeandAbuseofProcessas
describedintheAndersonlawsuitandthelegallyrelatedtoAndersonlawsuits.Thatthis
lawsuitfiledbyCoxandallpleadings,orders,exhibits,etc.renderedareherebyby
referenceincorporatedinentiretyherein.7911.
COXV.HILLETAL.CALIFORNIANORTHERNDISTRICTCOURTANTITRUST
CASENO.4:2013CV02046(HEREBYFULLYINCORPORATEDBYREFERENCEIN
ENTIRETYHEREIN,ALLPLEADINGS,ORDERS,ETC.)
25AND26112.
ThatdefendantinthislawsuitKashmirHill,Forbes,NewYorkTimes,WIPO,PeterL.
Michaelson,andalldefendantsofNorthernCaliforniaCase4:13cv02046DMR
conspiredtosuppressinformationthatinvestigativeBloggerCoxhadbeenreportingon.
113.Thatthedefendantsinthislawsuitviolatedantitrustlawsandarecreatingamedia
monopolythatisviolatingthelawfulandconstitutionalrightsofPlaintiffandCox.114.
ThatWIPOPanelistMichaelsonpostedunprivilegeddefamatorystatementsinan
internationalWIPOcomplaintinregardtoCoxbeingguiltyofthecrimeofExtortionand
thatthemanshewasreportingon,Plaintiff,wasalsoguiltyofthecrimeofExtortion.
Neither,PlaintiffnorCoxhadbeenunderinvestigationofextortion,ontrialforextortion
orconvictedofextortion.115.
ThatdefendantinthislawsuitRandazza,Cox'sexAttorneyconspiredwithothersto
harass,defameanddiscreditCoxandtheiViewitStoryofwhichshewasreportingon
whenRandazzasuedherandPlaintiff(withoutpropernotice),andactedinconspiracy
withLasVegasJudgeNavarro,WIPOandGodaddytoshutdownmassiveblogs/
onlinemediaownedbyCoxandPlaintiff.25
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiME55Ynk2VnE2anM/edit?pli=126
http://www.crystalcox.com/2013/05/investigativebloggercrystalcoxv.html80116.
ThatdefendantsinthislawsuitconspiredtoSTOPtheflowofinformationandviolate
Cox'sFirstAmendmentRightsinordertosuppressinformationregardingtheInventor
EliotBernsteinsiViewitTechnologyStory.12.
COXV.GODADDY,USDISTRICTCOURTOFARIZONAPHEONIX,CASENO.
CV1300962PHXMEA(HEREBYFULLYINCORPORATEDBYREFERENCEIN
ENTIRETYHEREIN,ALLPLEADINGS,ORDERS,ETC.
)27117.
ThatallegedlyOregonattorneyinthislawsuitdefendantPadricktolddefendantForbes
reporterdefendantKashmirHillthatCoxhadbeenunderinvestigationbytheOregon
73
AttorneyGeneral,Forbespublishedthisfalseanddefamatorystatementtothirdparties
concerningCoxandcausedCoxHarm.118.
ThatdefendantinthislawsuitPadricktolddefendantForbesreporterdefendant
KashmirHillthatCoxwasguiltyofextortion,andhadextortedhim.COXhadnotbeen
ontrialforextortionnorunderinvestigationforextortion.DefendantForbesreporter
defendantKashmirHillpublishedthisfalseanddefamatorystatementtothirdparties
concerningCoxandcausedCoxHarm.119.
ThatdefendantinthislawsuitRandazzawidelypublishedthatCoxwasguiltyof
extortionasdidotherdefendantsoftheDistrictofArizonaCASE#:2:13cv00962
MEA,andthishascausedirreparabledamagetoCOX.120.
ThatdefendantinthislawsuitRandazzafiledaWIPOcomplainttodefendantWIPO,
wherebydefendantMichaelsonwastheSOLEPanelistinthismatter.Defendant27
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiN0RsbXFqakVNSU0/edit81Randazza
filedthiscomplaintagainstCoxandPlaintiff.RandazzaaccusedCoxandPlaintiffofthe
crimeofextortion.Michaelsonthenconstructedthisasfact,alongwiththefalseand
defamatorystatementsofForbesreporterKashmirHill.121.
ThatMichaelsonpublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingCoxinaWIPO
decisionregardingdomainnames.MichaelsonaccusedCOXandPlaintiffofthecrime
ofextortioninthisinternationalpublicationthroughWIPO.122.Michaelsonand
RandazzahavecausedCoxandPlaintiffirreparableharmandareliablefordamages
causedtoPlaintiff.
74

Nevada Law Attorney - BAR PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nevada Law Attorney - BAR PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

NevadaBarComplaint

Randazza also violated

(3)To prevent, mitigate, or rectify the consequences of a clients criminal or fraudulent

(5)To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyerinacontroversybetweenthe

Randazza should nothavesuedme,norrepresentedhimselfdoingsowiththesamelawfirmthat

(b)Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph

(1)The lawyer reasonablybelievesthatthelawyerwillbeabletoprovidecompetentand

reasonable to the client and arefullydisclosedandtransmittedinwritinginamannerthatcanbe

(2)The client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a

(d)Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a lawyer shall not make or

(e)A lawyer shall not provide financialassistancetoaclientinconnectionwithpending

(f)A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a clientfromoneotherthan

(2)There is no interference with the lawyers independence ofprofessionaljudgmentor

(1)Make an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyers liability to a client for

(m)While lawyers are associated in a firm, a prohibition in the foregoing paragraphs,

Marc Randazza used inside and privileged information hegainedwhilerepresentingme,against

(2)Reveal information relating to the representation except astheseRuleswouldpermit

Marc Randazza andhislawfirmRLGviolated1.10inrepresenting,MarcRandazzaandhiswife

(c)A disqualification prescribed bythisRulemaybewaivedbytheaffectedclientunder

(1)The disqualified lawyer is timelyscreenedfromanyparticipationinthematterandis

(2)Written notice is promptly given to thepartiesandanyappropriatetribunaltoenable

(d)An arbitrator selected as a partisan of a party in a multimember arbitration panel is

Marc Randazza claims in sworn statements that he was notmyattorney.Yetheemailedmethat

(b)Even when no clientlawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has learned

(c)A lawyer subject to paragraph(b)shallnotrepresentaclientwithinterestsmaterially

(d)When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined inparagraph(c),

(e)A person who communicates information to a lawyer without any reasonable

(g)Whenever a prospective client shall request information regarding a lawyer or law

(2)The lawyer orlawfirmmayfurnishsuchadditionalfactualinformationregardingthe

(3)If the information furnished to the client includesafeecontract,thetopofeachpage

Marc Randazza violated Rule 2.EvenifMarcRandazzawasNOTmyattorneyasheclaims

(c)A lawyer shall withdraw as intermediary if anyoftheclientssorequests,orifanyof

(c)Except as disclosure is authorized in connection with a report of an evaluation,

(a)A lawyer serves as a thirdparty neutral when thelawyerassiststwoormorepersons

Rule3.1.Meritorious Claims and Contentions.

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a

(b)A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in whichanotherlawyerinthelawyersfirm

(b)Fail to disclose a materialfacttoathirdpersonwhendisclosureisnecessarytoavoid

(a)A partner in alawfirm,andalawyerwhoindividuallyortogetherwithotherlawyers

Rule7.1.Communications Concerning a Lawyers Services.

(a)Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to

(b)Is likely to create an unjustified or unreasonableexpectationaboutresultsthelawyer

(a)Subject to the requirements of Rule 7.1, a lawyer may advertiseservicesthroughthe

clients, or utilizes depictions offictionalizedeventsorscenes,thesamemustbedisclosed.Inthe

(c)All advertisements and writtencommunicationsdisseminatedpursuanttotheseRules

(e)Every advertisement and written communication indicating thatthechargingofafee

(f)A lawyer who advertises a specificfeeorrangeoffeesshallincludethedurationsaid

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi