-
NevadaBarComplaint
ComplainingParty:CrystalL.CoxPhone:[email protected],WA98368NameofAttorney:MarcJ.RandazzaLawFirm:RandazzaLegalGroupBarNumber12265PhoneNumber:70242020013625S.TownCenterDr.LasVegas,NV89135
HowMarcRandazzacametobemyattorneyOnoraboutDecember10th,2011,oneoftheBloggersonmyIndependentBlogNetwork,contactedmeregardinghiscontactinganattorneynamedMarcRandazza.(SeeExhibit18).Beforethis,IhadneverheardofMarcRandazza.Ihadjustlostamajorfreespeechcase(ObsidianFinanceGroupvs.Cox),onNovember28th,2011andexpressedthatIintendedtoappealtotheNinthCircuit.ThebloggerthoughtMarcRandazzawouldbeagoodfitandmayrepresentmeforFreeonmyNinthCircuitappeal,ashehadjusthadsomeTSAcaseinthemediaandseemedtobeveryproFreeSpeechrightsforallcitizens.Iagreedtohavea3wayphoneconversationregardingthepossibilityofmeagreeingtoallowMr.Randazzatorepresentme,inwhathadquicklybecomeahighprofileFirstAmendmentCasethataffectedtherightsofallcitizens,bloggers,whistleblowers,andcitizenjournalists.
1
-
OnDecember6th,2011IhadpreviouslyspoketoUCLALawProfessorEugeneVolokh.HecalledmeandaskedifhecouldrepresentmeonmyAppealofObsidianFinanceGroupv.CrystalCoxandwithabsolutelynocosttome.Iagreedthathecouldrepresentme.EugeneVolokhisalawprofessoranddoesnotpracticelawregularly.SohehadtogetthefinalapprovalofthelawfirmMayerBrownLLP.ThereforeIhadnothadfirmrepresentationyetfromhimwhenIspokewithMarcRandazza.AndwasopentobothoreitherofthemrepresentingmeonmyNinthCircuitAppeal,atthattime.
DiscussiononthatFirstCallOnmyrepresentationconferencecallwithMarcRandazza,wediscussedmystrategyformyappeal,aswellasmystrengthsandweaknessesandwhatIwaswillingtodoandnotwillingtodo.RandazzatoldmeIhadmadeamessofthecaseandhewouldhavetolookoverallthedocumentationtodecideifhewouldbeabletotakemycase.RandazzatoldmethatBigMediahadamonopolyonFreeSpeechandthatisjustthewayitis.Randazzaattemptedtogetmetonotappeal,bytellingmeitwasbestforallofsocietyifIdidnotappeal.Randazzaaskedmemystrategy,whatIwasopentoinmovingforward,andwhatIwasnot.Hequestionedmeonmanyaspectsofmyintentionsformyappeal.RandazzatoldmethatherepresentedtheMediaAssociationforBloggersandmayhaveaconflictofinterestinrepresentingme,andthathewouldgetbacktomeafterIgavehimallofthedocumentsofmycaseandhecheckedwiththem.
AttorneyMarcRandazzaRepresentationofCox
2
-
AsExhibit19shows,onDecember14th,2011Randazzaconfirmedhisrepresentationofme,CrystalCox.AtthistimeRandazzahadalreadybeganrepresentation,hespoketotheoppositioninmyObsidiancase.Hehadalreadyputintimeandmaterial,hehadtriedtobrokeradealofwhichIhadnoideaofthedetails,andhewasdiscussinghisrepresentationwithotherFirstAmendmentattorneys.Healsotoldtheseattorneyshewasrepresentingmeonappealbeforethisdate.OnDecember15th,2011,AsExhibit20shows,myattorneysMarcRandazzaandEugeneVolokhwereworkingwith,andkeepingmeintheloopontheirrepresentationofmeandthecasestrategymovingforward.Theywerediscussingorderingcourtdocumentsfilingamotionforanewtrial,andhadphonecallsdiscussion,aswellasemailcommunicationonhowtobestmoveforwardwithmycase.Theywerebothrepresentingmeatthattimeandintalksaboutthecasewiththecourts,otherattorneyandme,astherecordshows.Thereafter,itcametomyattentionthatRandazzahadcontactedOregonattorneyDavidAman,theoppositioninmyObsidiancase,andhadbeennegotiating(brokering)adealthatwouldstopmyappealandsomehowchangethestatusofthejudgement.EugeneVolokhtoldmethisinaphonecallandinemailsofDec.15th,2011,inExhibit1.AlsoinExhibit1andthatphonecallEugeneVolokhtoldmethatRandazzawasdiscussing,withotherFirstAmendmentbarattorneysthatherepresentedmeandwastryingtobrokeradeal.Ihadnoknowledgeofthedetailsofthisnegotiation,noranytermsofitandRandazzadidnothavemypermissiontopresentadealofanykindyet.Especiallyonewithoutmeknowingthedetail.Therefore,atthistime,IdecidedtoFireMarcRandazzaspecificallyonthegroundsthathewaspresenting(brokering)deals,discussingmotionstobefiled,andpresentingoptionstotheoppositioninmycasewithtotaldisregardforwhatIwanted,myneeds,or
3
-
keepingmeinformedonthedetailsofthosedeal/negotiationsthatfullyaffectedme.Andtreatingmewithcompletedisrespect.AsseeninExhibit21,OnDecember16th2011at9:21am,IfiredattorneyMarchRandazza.ItoldhimhedoesnotrepresentmeandthatonlyEugeneVolokhrepresentsme,fromthismoment.IwouldhavekeptRandazzaonwithVolokhhadhenotliedtome,beratedme,andpresenteddealstotheoppositionwithoutmypermissionorknowledgeofwhattheywere,inmy$2.5milliondollarjudgmentandtheappealcase.Randazzaretaliatedagainstmeplainandsimple,andExhibit21provesthathedidsowithintent,maliciouslyandafterclaiming,offeringtobeofanykindofhelp.AlsoseeninExhibit21,OnDecember16th2011at12:55PMRandazzasayshehasnoissuewithmedoingthatandofferstohelpmeinthefutureinanywayhecan.Exhibit21showsthatMarcRandazzaclaimstorespectsme,apologizedifIfeltnottreatedwellandsaidthefollowing:"Peoplelikeyouareimportantforthefutureofcitizenjournalism,andIwishtoseeyousucceed."
OverviewofmyGrievanceMybasiccomplaintisthatamanIthoughtwasmyattorney,whomIgaveprivateinformation,strategy,andsharedmystrengthsandweaknesseswith,usedallIgavehimagainstmetoattempttobrokeradealthatwasnotinmybestinterest,butintheinterestofhispornclients.AllwithtotaldisregardforwhatIwantedandhadexpressedtohimweremywantcasegoals.Randazzaviolatedmyconstitutionalrights,myrightsasalitigant,andtreatedmeextremedisrespect.
4
-
Ifiredthisattorneywhohadtalkeddowntome,liedtome,misrepresentedme,gaveawaymysecretsandstrategies,triedtotrickmeintonotappealingmy$2.5milliondollarjudgementandtriedtobrokeradealwithoutmyknowledgeorconsent,andagainstmybestinterest.Exhibit21showsRandazzaadmittingtobrokeringadeal,allegedlyonmybehalf,hesaidthis:,"IdidtelltheopposingcounselthatIthoughtadealmightbebrokered".AfterIfiredhimonOnDecember16th2011,andheemailedmeandsaidtolethimknowifhecouldhelpmeinanyway,evenifinthebackground.IcontinuedmycasewithEugeneVolokh.ThenonJanuary16,2012,takingmyformerattorneyathiswordofofferinghelp,inanyway,evenifinthebackground,Iemailedhimaskingforajoborajobrecommendation.Heemailedmebackandattackedme,asseeninExhibits.Andeventhoughhisreturnemailclearlyshowedhimupset,hesaidhedidknowIwasaskingforajob.However,afterthis,heusedapartoftheemailthread,gaveittothemedia,aswellaslegalbloggers,andinternationalreviewboards,andthenmultiplecourts,andpaintedme,hisformerclientouttobeacriminal.
Hedidnotfileacriminalcomplaint,yetusedhismediaandlegalconnectionstopaintmeasguiltyforthecrimeofextortion.Heviolatedmy.rightsofdueprocess,myconstitutionalrights,andhedeliberately,withfullknowledgeofitbeingfalse,defamedmeandmadefalsestatementstothirdpartiesaroundtheworld.IncludingNPR,Forbes,theNewYorkTimes,LegalandFraudExperts,WIPO(internationalpublications,domainnamesandintellectualpropertylaw),andheusedhisknowledgeofFirstAmendmentLaw,andhisconnectiontolegalbloggersandbigandsmallmediatopaintmeoutasacriminalworldwide.Itismybelief,thatRandazzaowedmeadutytokeepmyemailprivateandtonotdoanythingadversetomywellbeing.Hehasnowembarkedona3yearcampaignto
5
-
harassme,intimidateme,sueme,lietocourtsandmediaaboutme,andflatoutruinmylife,family,relationships,reputationandqualityoflife.Ireliedonwhatmyformerattorneysaidaboutmycase,mybestinterest,movingforward,andthathewouldfollowthroughwithwhatwasmywishesandofmybestgood.Ireliedonmyformerattorneyswordofferinghelptomeevenifinthebackground.YetwhenIemailedhim,takinghimuponthatoffer.Hetookthatprivateemailandgaveittolegalbloggers,courts,WIPOandtobigandsmallmediawidespread,paintingmeinfalselight,lyingaboutmeKNOWINGwhatthetruthwasandhassinceruinedmylife.Itookmyformerattorney,whoclaimedtohumblyrespectme,apologized,sayingpeoplelikemewereneed,athisword.ItrulybelievedthatRandazzawassincereinlettinghimknowifhecouldhelpme,eveninthebackground.Ihadlostmyhome,lostmyincomeandneededajob,thiswasthehelpItrulyneeded.IsimplyaskedRandazzaifheknewanyoneorwouldhiremeforPRworkandhemaliciously,deliberatelyandknowingthetruthpaintedtotheworldthatIhadextortedhimandthatIandiViewitInventorEliotBernsteinwerefelony,criminalextortionist,asamatteroffact.Knowingfullwellthathedidnotbelievethis,hesimplywanttoteachmealesson,intimidatemeretaliateagainstme,punishmefornotdoingashetoldmeandchoosinghimasmylawyerinmylandmarkruling,andruinmylifepurposelywithwillfulwantonintent.IreliedonthelegaladviceofMarcRandazza.Randazza,myformerattorneyobstructedmyjustice,violatedmydueprocessrightsandmyconstitutionalrights.MarcRandazzawasnegligentinhislegalrepresentationofme,CrystalCoxandseverelynegligentinhisdutyofcare,ethicsandactionstoharmmeforyearsaftermyappeal,whereherepresentedme.Thisnegligencecausemeinjury,defamedme,causedmeirreparableharm,renderedmyhomeless,pennilessandincitedwordwidehate.
6
-
Alawyershallusetacticsthatarelegal,honestandrespectfulofcourtsandyetRandazzadeliberatelyliedtothecourtstopaintmeinfalselight,toruinmylifeandbusiness,andtoseveremyfamilyandbusinessconnections.Heusedhisclout,legalknowledgeandcredibilitytoabuseme,violatemydueprocessrights,violatemyconstitutionalrightsandcompletelydestroymylife,business,reputationandpersonalrelationswithdeliberateintentandfullknowledgeofwhathewasportrayingaboutmewasnottrue.Hehimselfdidnotevenbeliefit,asExhibit17clearlyshows,heknewIwasONLYaskingforajob,andsaidhedidnotmindthat.Alawyershallactwithintegrityandprofessionalism,maintaininghisoverarchingresponsibilitytoensurecivilconduct.YetRandazzaclearlydidnotdothis.Alawyer'sdutytothecourtrelatestohisstatusasaprofessionalwhoserves,notonlyclients,potentialclientsandformerclientsbutalsothepublicinterest.Historically,aprofessionalwasdistinguishedfromatradespersonbyapublicdeclarationdemonstratedtodaybytheoathtakenatadmissiontotheBartoserveothersanddevotetheirintellectandeffortstothepublicgood.MarcRandazzaclearlyfailedinhisdutytome,thecourtandthepublic.Alawyer'sdutytothecourtalsorelatestotheprofession'sindependence,orwhathasbeendescribedas"thehighdegreeofautonomythatlawyersexperiencefromexternalcontrolsotherthanthoseimposedbyselfregulation."Selfregulationisaprivilegethatcomeswithsubstantialobligationsthatareintendedtoprotecttherightsofindividuals.Randazzaclearlyhasnotmaintainedintegrityasanofficerofthecourt,butinsteadhasusedhispowerinthecourtstoretaliateagainstthosewhomhehasapersonalissuewithorthosewhoexercisetheirFreeSpeechrightsandspeakcriticalofhimorhiswife,asisourFirstAmendmentRight.Hehasusedthepowerthecourtshavegivehimtoissuefalsesubpoena,scareandbulLypeopleintogivingprivileged,privateinformation,andtofilelegalactionstousemoney,reputationandothertacticstoforcethosehesues,litigants(targets)intotaking
7
-
whateveractionheistryingtoforcetheminto,beitasettlement,removinggripesites,takingdownparodyorgraphicsthatpokefunathim,reportonhiscasesrepresentingthepornindustryorreallyanythinghedisapprovesof.Thedutytothecourtisalsoimportantbecausethereareconsequencesforlawyerswhodonotupholdit.Thisisdemonstratedbythepenaltiesattachedtocivilandcriminalcontempt.Yetforsomereason,thecourtsseemtoprotectMarcRandazzathoughtheclearly,andinpatternandhistoryacrossmanystates,doesthissamethingtovictimaftervictimandhasmanagedtonothavecontemptchargesagainsthim,thoughIhavetoldthecourtsoverandoverwhatthisattorneyhasdonetomeandtoothersinwhichIpersonallyknowof.Alawyerhasadutytousetacticsthatarelegal,honestandrespectful.Thisdutyisoftenreferredtoasthedutyofcandour.Underthisumbrellaofalawyer'sdutytothecourt,lawyersareprimarilyresponsibleforensuringthattheydonotemploystrategiesthatwillmisleadthecourtthisincludesmisleadingthecourtonevidentiaryandlegalpointsaswellasmakinguseoftacticalstrategiesthatarelikelytoaffectacase.YetRandazzadeliberategavemanycourts,media,legalbloggers,NPR,Forbes,NewYorkTimes,WIPOandmore,falseinformation,falseswornstatementoffactsandhedeliberatelygavethecourtsfalseinformationregardingme,hisformerclientanddidsoinhiswife'scasethroughhislawfirm,againstpornindustrywhistleblowerAlexandraMayers.Randazzarepeatedlymisleadsthecourtandflatoutliestothecourtabouthistargets.Hethenusestheseliesinmediatoforcesettlements,ruinlives,setpeopleupforcrimesandputthemundermassive,endlessstalking,harassmentandstress.Randazzasubmittedfalseevidencetothecourtsregardingme.HedidthisinRandazzav.CoxintheDistrictofNevada,hedidthisinWIPOstatements,inCZECHcourtstatements,hedidthistobigandsmallmedia,inlegalpublicationsandonNationalRadio.
8
-
MarcRandazzadeliberatelymisledthecourtsonlaws,suchastheTROthatstolemyintellectualpropertyandotherlawsinRandazzav.Cox.Thisisunlawful,unconstitutionalandunethical.Lawyersmustrespectthecourt.Respectcomesinallformspreparednessandtimelinessareoneaspectofconsideration.Beingfamiliarwiththefactsandlawapplicabletoyourcase,andknowingyourclient'spositionisthemostfundamentaldisplayofrespectforthecourtprocess.Thisdutytothecourtis,ineffect,anoverlappingdutyofcompetencywehavetotheclient.Alawyershouldnotabusethecourtprocess.Alawyershouldnotunreasonablyraiseordefendanactionforwhichthereisnolegaljustification.Randazzasuedmetobully,intimidateandsuppressmyspeech.Heshouldnothaveabusedthecourtprocesswithnoreallegaljustification,yethedid.Randazzaknewmypositioninmyappeal,yetwentagainstmywishesandbehindmybacktostrikeadealthatwouldbegoodforthefutureandatthattimecurrentcasesofhisotherclients,thelargeporncompaniesherepresented.Withthishecompletelyviolatedmyrightsofduesprocessanddutiesowedtomeashisformerclient,potentialclient,orcurrentclient.AttorneyMarcRandazzaclearlydisrespectedthecourtprocessand,inhisarroganceanddisrespectofthecourtandthelaws,completelyviolatedmyrightsasaformerclient,alitigantandaU.S.citizen.Whendealingwithothers,alawyershallbecourteous,civilandactingoodfaithwithallpersonswithwhomhedealswithduringthecourseofpractice.YetMarcRandazzaincitedworldwidehateagainstme,filedAmicusBriefs,wentonNPR,filedswornstatements,spoketobigandsmallmediaandmaliciously,deliberatelywithwillfulandwantonintentincitedhated,spreaddefamatorymaliciouslies,anddidnotactcivil,notcourteousandNOTingoodfaith.
9
-
Alawyer'sdutyofcivilityextendstothoseindividualswhoareintegraltoourlegalprocesssuchaswitnesses.YetMarcRandazzathreatened,bullied,sued,andmaliciouslyattackedmychurch,thoseIworkedfor,ex's,thoseIministertoanddidnotactwithcivilityatall.MarcRandazzaowedmea''standardofcare''inwhichheclearlybreached.LegalMalpracticeisabreachbyanattorneyinthestandardofcareorinthestandardofconductthatisapplicabletoallattorneys.ClearlyRandazzabreachedhisstandardofcarewhenitcomestome,CrystalCox.
DetailsandExplanationofmyGrievanceOnJanuary16,2012at2:30pmIemailedmyformerattorneyMarcRandazza,andaskedhimifheoranyoneheknewwouldhiremeforPRservices.As,withmycase,Ihadlostmyhome,my,business,mywaytomakemoney,andIwasstruggling.Randazzahademailedmepriorandtoldmethatpeoplelikemewereimportant,andthatifhecouldhelpinanyway,evenifonlyinthebackground,tolethimknow.Exhibit21showsRandazzasaying,"Despitethecontentsofthisemail,IwishtoletyouknowthatIamsillwillingtolendahandinanywayeveninthebackground."RandazzaemailedmebackanddemandedthatIgivehimadomainnamethathethoughtIhadnorighttoown.WhenIrefused,hebecameenraged.OnJanuary16,20122:36PM,RandazzaemailedmeandsaidYouwanttomakeanenemyofme,really?AsExhibit17clearlyshows.OnJan17,2012at6:52AM,MarcRandazzaemailedme,asseeninExhibit17andexpressedhisfrustrationwithme,hisanger,andthefactthathedidnotmindmeaskingforajob.WhichshowsheclearlyknewandfullybelievedthatIwasaskingforajob.
10
-
Yet,hegaveapartofthisemailthreadtoKennethP.White,attorneyandlegalbloggeratPopehat.com,heleakedittoForbes,NPR,theNewYorkTimesandclaimeditwasthecrimeofExtortion.Myformerattorney,wassovengefulhethencontactedtheoppositionandofferedtogiveinformationaboutmetohelpthemwintheircaseAGAINSTME.Allthiswithtotaldisregardformyrightsashisclient,formerclientorhispotentialclient.OnMarch7th,2012,myformerattorneyMarcRandazzacontactedTonkonTorpLawFirm,theOppositioninmyObsidiancaseandheofferedtogivetestimonythatwouldsetmeupforthecrimeofExtortionandtherebyhelpthemtowintheNinthCircuitappeal.Clearly,thiswasunethical,unlawfulandunconstitutional.Thisviolatedmyrightsasaformerclient,andwithtotaldisregardformyrightsasalitigantinthecase,acaseofwhichhehadmyinsideinformation,mysecrets,mystrategyandhadnegotiatedonmybehalf.Randazzainitiatedandwasplanningongivingadepositionagainstme,aclienthehadrepresentedinthatsamecase.Approx.March30th,2012,MarcRandazzabeganpublishingfalseanddefamatorystatementsonhislegalblogaccusingmeofhavingablogabouthischild,attackinganinfantandbeinganextortionist.Noneofwhichweretrueinanywaynoradjudicatedfact.Asnotedabove,Randazzaclearlydidnot,himself,believeIhadtriedtoextorthimbutwasonlyaskingforajob.Thereforehedeliberately,willfullyandwithmaliciousintentpaintedmeinfalselightonhisblog,andfromtheretomediaaroundtheworld.OnApril2nd2012,ForbesReporterKashmirHillbeganpublishingfalseanddefamatorystatementsclaimingthatIhadattackedRandazzaschild,hadablogabouthischild,andhadextortedRandazza.MyformerattorneytoldFORBES,ahouseholdname,thatIwasacriminal,andhepaintedmeouttobeevil,andthereforeruinedmy
11
-
life,myrelationships,mybusiness.Andhedidso,ALL,withknowledgeitwasfalseandwithmaliciousintent.
OnApril3rd2012,RandazzaLegalGroupattorneyJordanRushiepublishedfalseand
defamatorystatements,accusingmeofbeingascammer,andextortionistandpainting
meouttobeaverybadpersonwhohadcommittedcrimes.
JordanRushieofRandazzaLegalGroupdidthisinanarticleonPhillyLawBlogTitled
"TheEvolutionofCrystalCox:AnatomyofaScammer",dated,April3rd2012.Jordan
RushiepostedfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingCoxbeingguiltyofextortion
andattackingathreeyearold.ThisblogpostisthetopGooglesearchformyname,
andwaspostedwithdeliberateintenttoruinmylife,mybusiness,harmmylegalcase,
pressuremetosettle,stopmyappeal,intimidateme,bullyme,andharassme.
RandazzaLegalGroupattorneyJordanRushiealsohasahateblogagainstmewith
thedomainnameCrystalCox.com.
OnApril6th2012,BobGarfield,NPRreporterinterviewedmyformerattorneyMarcRandazzaonNewYorkPublicRadio.TheshowwascalledCOMBATING"BAD"SPEECHWITHMORESPEECH,Dated,April06,2012.OntheMedia,asExhibitsshow.
BobGarfieldandMarcRandazzastatedfalseanddefamatory,slanderousstatementsmaliciouslytotheentireworld,inanationallysyndicatedradioshow.Withfullknowledgeitwasfalseandwithdeliberate,maliciousintenttoharmme.BobGarfieldandMarcRandazzaaccusedmeofattackingachildonline,ofbeingguiltyofextortion,andallmannerofunethicalandcriminalactivity.Thesefalseanddefamatorystatementsinthisworldwidemediumofcommunicationhascausedmeimmeasurable,irreparabledamage.
12
-
OnApril14th2012,myformerattorneyMarcRandazzafiledaProtectiveOrderAgainstmeintheLasVegasCourts.Ihaveandhadnevermettheman.Hewastheoneattacking,threateningandbullyingmeandusinggangsofattorneys,fraudinvestigators,bigandsmallmediaandradiotoharass,defameandintimidateme.Yethefilesforaprotectiveorderagainstme,hisformerclientofwhichhehaddutiesandObligationsto.OnApril27th,2012,myformerattorney,MarcRandazzacontinuestointerfereinmyNinthCircuitcaseandtryandsetmeup,exposesmysecretstotheoppositionandevenworkswiththemtoattempttoseizemyallegedassetstocovermy$2.5milliondollarjudgement.Randazzahadnoethical,moral,constitutionalorlawfulreasontobeworkingwiththeoppositioninmycase,directlyagainstmybestinterest.Hewasmyformerattorney,hecounseledmeinthecase,heworkedonmotions,transcriptordering,negotiationsandthenheworkswiththeoppositiontocausemeharm.Randazzahelpedtheopposition,TonkonTorpLawyerDavidAmantohelpthemattempttoseizedomainnames,RandazzarecommendsreceiverLaraPearson,ashehadpreviouslyusedherintheRighthavencaseoutofNevada.Myformerattorneythatwasunderoathtoactinmybestinterested,advisedtheOppositionsattorneyDavidAmantouseLaraPearsonasareceivertocomeformyallegedassets.TherewasnootherwayanOregonattorneywouldhavechosethisexactperson.Randazzacontinuedhiscampaigntoharmme.Randazzacontinuedtotelllegalbloggers,lawfirms,reporters,radioandmorethatIhadextortedhimandharmedhischild,hisfamily.Hedidsowithfullknowledgeofitbeingfalse.OnMay11th2012,theOppositioninthecaseObsidianFinanceGroupv.CrystalCox
13
-
outoftheDistrictofOregon,filedamultimilliondollarlegalactionagainstEliotBernstein.EliotBernsteinhadnotbeenadefendantinthatcase,wasnotnamedanywhereinthatcase,andthejuryhadhappened6monthspriorandfoundCoxliablefor$2.5millionatthattime.ThislawsuitwasfiledasanaddendumtoDistrictofOregon3:11cv00057HZ,DocketEntry136138.Themotion/lawsuitwasdenied,howeverfromthatmomentonEliotBernsteinwasnamedonthedocketasadefendantinthecaseandashavinga$2.5milliondollarjudgementagainsthim,clearlydefaminghim,harminghismultibilliondollartechnologyactionsandcausinghimharassment,stressandendangermenttohimandhisfamily.ThislegalactionwasduetoMarcRandazzasaccusationsagainstCoxandBernsteinandleadingtheoppositionintheObsidiancasetobelievethatwehadextortedhimandwehadassetsthattheOppositioncouldcomefor.Randazzacreatedthisandcounseledtheoppositioninthiscaseonthesematters.OnJun18th2012,MarcRandazzafiledaCzechcourtcomplaintagainstmeandEliotBernstein,whoinventediViewit,avideotechnologythatthepornindustryuses,andsomeonewhoIhavebeenreportingonforover5years.Thiscomplaintwastoinitiateadomainnamedispute.Inthiscase,MarcRandazzastatedfalseanddefamatorystatementsandclaimedthatIandEliotBernsteinhadextortedhim.Hepaintedme,hisformerclient,infalselightandhedruginotherswhomIhadreportedon.MarcRandazzausedthearticlesandblogsofForbesKashmirHill,attorneyJordanRushieandNewYorkTimesreporterDavidCarrsfalseanddefamatorystatementsashisevidencetostealtheintellectualproperty.Eventhoughhehimselfhadcreatedthatallegedevidencebytellingthemflatoutlies,knowingfullwelltheywereliesabouthisformerclient,andeventhoughtheyarehearsay.Essentiallyusinghisowninterviewswiththemaspurportedandbelievedevidence,thoughitwasfalseanddefamatorystatementsoffactwithwillful,wanton,deliberateandmaliciousintent.
14
-
OnJuly27th2012,MarcRandazzafiledaWIPO(WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization)complaintoutofSwitzerlandagainstmeandEliotBernstein,toinitiateadomainnamedispute.Inthiscase,MarcRandazzastatedfalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningme.HeagainusedForbesKashmirHill,JordanRushieandDavidCarrsfalseanddefamatorystatements,hearsay,ashisevidencetostealmyintellectualproperty.Clearlyknowingitwasfalse,MarcRandazzastatedinswornstatementstoWIPOthatCrystalCoxandEliotBernsteinwereguiltyofExtortionandhadalsoextortedhimpersonally,yetattorneyMarcRandazzahadfilednocriminalchargesagainsteitherofusnorwasIgivendueprocessoflawintheseveryseriousallegations,thatmyformerattorneysworethatIwasguiltofandhadparticipatedin,accordingtohim,asamatteroffact.AstherecordshowsBigandSmallMediaaswellasattorneybloggers,radioshows,internationalintellectualpropertylaw,legalpublications,theassociatedpress,smallandlargebloggersandpublishersandmorepickedupthestoryorweredirectlytoldbyRandazzafalseanddefamatorystatementsandtoldtoposthisversionofthefacts,which,asExhibitsshow,wereclearlyfalseanddefamatoryandwithfullknowledgeofthelawandtheirfalsehood.OnNovember28th,2012,MyformerattorneyMarcRandazzafiledaTrademarkclaimagainstmeintheDistrictofNevada.Case2:12cv02040JADPAL,inordertostealmassiveonlinecontent,domainnamesandblogsandtochillmyonlinespeechthatspokecriticalofhim,reviewedhimandhislawfirmanddiscussedwhathehaddonetomeandtootherswhohavebythencontactedme.MarcRandazzzaclaimedthatIhadviolatedhisTrademarkwithmyGripesitescomplainingabouthowhehadtreatedme,gripingabouthim,andmakingfunofhimandhislawfirm.OnDecember14th,2012,JudgeGloriaNavarroGRANTEDRandazzas
15
-
ExParteMotionforTemporaryRestrainingOrderandMotionforPreliminaryInjunctionandgavehimmyintellectualproperty,mygripesites,withNOfirstamendmentadjudicationwhatsoever.Theysimplystrippedmyrightsofdueprocessandconstitutionalrights.JudgeGloriaNavarrousedthehearsayevidencethatMarcRandazzagavehertomakethisruling.AndthatevidencewastheJordanRushieblog,ForbesandotherlegalblogsthathehimselfhadtoldpersonallythatIwasguiltyofextortion,andhadattackedhisinfantchild.AndtheWIPOruling,containinghisflatout(sworn)liesthatI,andEliotBernsteinwerecriminalextortionistsandhadcausedhimpersonalharm.JudgeGloriaNavarrousedthisnonadjudicatedhearsayasadjudicatedfactualevidenceandseizedmassiveblogs,domainnames,andonlinecontentofwhichgaveRandazzatopsearchengineplacement.Withtotaldisregardformyrights.JudgeGloriaNavarroalsoruledthatthedomainnameserversbeallowedtobechangedandthedomainsgiventoRandazzawithoutadjudication.Randazzathenusedallmyblogposts,myhardwork,mydecadesofproprietaryknowledge,andsearchengineplacementtoredirecttoONEblogpostonRandazzasesteemedlegalblogattackinganddefamingme,accusingmeofillegalbehaviorandharmingchildren.MarcRandazzafiledthislegalaction,aSLAPPsuit,againstmeintheDistrictofNevada.RandazzasattorneyofrecordinthecasewasRonaldD.GreenofRandazzaLegalGroup.Thisharassingcaseisongoingtothisday.Randazzafiledthiscasetostiflemyspeech,chillmyspeech,removeblogsthatspokecriticalofhimandhislawfirmormadefunofhim,stealdomainnamesthathedidnotwantmetohaveandessential,completelyviolatemyrightsofdueprocessoflaw,myrightsashisformerclient,myFirstAmendmentRightsandmyFreeSpeechRights.MarcRandazza,myformerattorneymadesworncourtstatementsthatIhadextortedhimandhegavethesesworn,falseanddefamatorystatementsashisevidencetofederalcourtwithfullknowledgethattheywerefalse.Myformerattorney,MarcRandazzadidnotfilecriminalchargeswiththeauthorities.Nordidhefilechargeswiththeattorneygeneraloranyotherbodyofauthority,regardinghisallegationsthatIandEliotBernsteinhadextortedhim,wasguiltyofextortionorhadbeeninANYpriorcasewhereIwasinvestigatedandfoundguiltyofthefelonycrimeofextortion.
16
-
InsteadRandazzausedhispowerofthecourtsandlegalknowledgetocausemeandEliotBernsteinharm,harassanddefameusworldwide.MarcRandazza,anattorneyoflaw,wouldcertainlyknowhowtofilecriminalcharges.Yetinstead,MarcRandazzaviolatedtherightsofhisformerclientanddidnotfilecriminalchargesandtherebyallowmedueprocessoflaw.Instead,thiswellknownattorneyusedworldrenownedmediaoutletssuchasForbes,theNewYorkTimesandNPR,andaninternational,highlyreputablepublicationputoutbyWIPOashiscourtoflaw,judgeandjuryandsimplypronouncedthatIandiViewitInventorEliotBernsteinwasguiltyofthefelonycrimeofextortion.OnNov.30th2012,attorneyandcolleagueofMarcRandazza,PeterL.Michaelson,SoleWIPOPanelist,madehisrulingAGAINSTmeandEliotBernstein,basedSOLELYonthefalseanddefamatory,deliberate,maliciousliesofmyformerattorneyMarcRandazza.AndtheevidencehesubmittedtoWIPO,whichwashearsayarticlesinmediawherehehimselfhadtoldthemthatIandEliotBernsteinwasacriminalextortionist.ThisWIPOrulingwaspublishedworldwideinahighlyesteemedintellectualpropertypublicationanddefamedmethoroughlycausingmeirreparableharm.WIPOthenpublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningmeandiViewitVideoTechnologyInventorEliotBernsteininaWIPOpublication,whichhasawidespread,internationalreaderbase.Inthispublication,WIPOpanelist,attorneyPeterL.MichaelsonflatoutaccusedusoftheCrimeofExtortion,withnodueprocessoflawwhatsoever.AfterattorneyPeterL.MichaelsonsfalseanddefamatorystatementswerepublishedinanInternationalWIPOcomplaintdecision,MarcRandazzaviahisattorneyRonaldD.GreenofRandazzaLegalGroup,usedthispublicationasjudicialevidenceintheDistrictofNevadacasetoharmmeandBernsteinandflatoutstealourintellectualproperty,eventhoughmyformerattorneyMarcRandazzawastheonewhomadetheStatementstoWIPOinthefirstplace.
AtthispointthestatementsintheWIPOpublicationmadebyDefendantPeterL.MichaelsonofDefendantWIPOBECAMEofficialevidenceandproofinDefendant
17
-
RandazzascaseagainstPlaintiffCoxandEliotBernstein(thenDistrictofNevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPAL).Next,JudgeGloriaNavarrousedtheevidence,legalcommentaryandsloughoffalseanddefamatorystatementsmadebyRandazzaasjustificationtogivemassivedomainnamesandintellectualpropertytoMarcRandazzainapreliminaryinjunction.Thiswipedoutthousandsoflinks,wipedoutthesearchenginerankingofmine,deletedmassiveamountsofcontentthatIhadcreatedonline,anddamagedmyintellectualpropertyandonlinemedia.Thisactionbyafederaljudgealsocausedabacklashofdefamation,harassment,retaliationandlossofreputation,clients,friendsandfamily,ofwhichhasbeengoingonforover3yearsnowandIhavenowaytorecover.Ithasrenderedmehomeless,penniless,andwithnowaytorentahome,getclientsorsecureincometosurvive.Myformerattorneypaintedmetotheworldasacriminal,ascammer,anextortionistandsomeonewhoharmschildren.Iamananticorruptionbloggeranddefendtherightsofchildrenaswellasallvictimsofcorruption.Randazzaknewthisandsaidpeoplelikemeareneeded,importantandherespectedme,thenheturnedrightaroundandpaintedalietotheworldanddeliberately,maliciouslyruinedmylife.Andwithdeliberate,insidepersonalknowledgethatwhathewassayingwasindeedfalsestatementsoffact.OnJanuary3,2013theMultnomahCountySheriffintheStateofOregonhadscheduledacourthousestepssaleonmyrighttoappealmyNinthCircuitcaseandtherebyrevokemy2.5millionjudgementandalsofollowthroughwiththerulingonthisimportantissueofbloggershavingequalrightsasamatteroflawasmainstreamnewsjournalistsandtheinstitutionalpress.Myappealhadalreadybeenfiledlongbefore.YettheoppositionhadjustlearnedthattheymaybeabletoSEIZEmyconstitutionalrighttoappeal,asanassettosatisfytheIfthisweretohappentherewouldnolongerbeaNinthCircuitCas.ItwasfiledinanOregoncourtofwhichwasnotconnectedtothelowercourtcaseortheNinthCircuitcase,therebytryingtoslipinanauctionofmyrights,toliterallystealmyrighttoappeal.Iwasmyownattorneyinthepartofthecasethatdealtwithmyassets,oranyjudgementbeingsatisfied.SoIcontactedEugeneVolokh,myNinthCircuitattorney,he
18
-
thenfiledamotiontoSTAYthesale,filedintheDistrictofOregon3:11cv00057HZatDocument145.Wewonthemotiontostayandstoppedthesalejustintime.Apparentlyitislegaltodothisinsomestatesandnotinothers.OnFebruary11th,2013IhadaphoneconversationwithFloridaAttorneyToddLevine.Iaskedhimaboutproceduressuchasthis.HetoldmethatitusedtobepopularintheStateofFlorida.Thisactionofseizingpeoplesrighttoappealinlieuoftheirdebt/judgementintheoriginalcase.
Myformerattorney,MarcRandazza,havingbeenaFloridaattorneyforalongtime,andstartinghiscareerthere,hadbeenveryfamiliarwiththisprocess(scheme)inwhichviolatedtheconstitutionalrightsoflitigantstoappealacase.Randazzahadcounseled,providedinformationtoandbasicallygaveattorneyadvicetotheOppositioninmycasethatwentagainstmybestgood,andtocompletelyshutmedowninmyNinthCircuitappeal.Withtotaldisregardthathehadbeenmycounselpriortothisandowedmeadutyofethics,noconflictsofinterest,nodisclosureofmyinformationinanyway.OnFebruary21st,2013,Docketentry87ofRandazzav.Cox,showsExhibitsofMarcRandazzaemailingCPA,andSummitBankruptcywhistleblowerStephanieDeYoungbullyingherintogivinghimDefendantmyfinancialinformation,andanyinformationonaChurchthatheclaimedIhadstarted.StephanieDeYoungwasnevermyCPAandIhadnotyetstartedachurchatthistime,Randazza,actingashisownattorney,attemptedtogetDeYoungtogivemyprivatefinancialinformation,threateningtosubpoenaher,sueherandotherbullyingtactics.OnMay13th2013,EliotBernsteinfiledamotionregardingfraudonthecourt,andincludedhisbeingharassedbymyformerattorneyMarcRandazza,SeeCaseNumber1:07cv11196SAS,Bernsteinv.AppellateDivisionFirstDepartment,SouthernDistrictofNewYork.Page5681(ExhibitV)
19
-
OnJanuary17,2014,NinthCircuitCase:1235238ID:8964107,JudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.Hurwitz,CircuitJudgesaccusedmeofhavingahistoryofpostingthingsonlineandseekingmoneyforaretraction.Theydidthisinanappealruling,inwhichIwon.My$2.5millionjudgementwasoverturned.Iwasheadedbacktothelowercourtprose.TheseJudgesusedaNewYorkTimesarticlebyDavidCarr,whichislegallyhearsay,asadjudicatedfact,andsimplythrewintotherulingthatIhadahistoryofextortionatebehavior.Myformerattorneyconspiredwithotherstopaintthispicturetotheworld.TheNewYorkTimesarticlewasNOTadjudicatedfact,norwasitanypartofthelowercourtruling,orcase.YetJudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.Hurwitzsoughtoutthisarticleandusedit,asevidence,asifadjudicatedfact,andpaintedmeouttobeacriminal,withcompletedenialofdueprocessasIamentitled,asamatteroflawandconstitutionalrights.MyformerattorneyMarcRandazzamaliciouslypaintedmeouttobeabadperson,afelonyextortionateandonewhoattacksinfants.JudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.Hurwitz,simplyaddinglib,andthrowingintheseunadjudicatedstatementswasunlawfulandprejudicedmeasIwasheadingbacktothelowercourtProSe.SoIaskedmyNinthCircuitattorneyEugeneVolokhtofileanappealandseekaretractionofthesecriminalallegationsbyanesteemedpanelofhighercourtjudges.Asanactivistlitigant,Ididnotwantthistohappentootherinvestigativebloggers,whistleblowers,andcitizenjournalists,soIappealedthroughmyattorney.AsIfeltthiswasmydutyandobligation.OnJanuary27th2014,RandazzaLegalGroup(RLG)issuedasubpoenatoGodaddy,theNoticeofSubpoenawasDistrictofNevada,andsignedbyLawClerkatRLG,signaturecannotbemadeout,andnoprintedname.TheactualsubpoenatoGodaddysaidDistrictofArizonaonthedocuments,andstatedthataC.DeRoseat5131N.40thSt,A310,PhoenixAZwouldexamineallfinancialdata,electronicallystoredinformation,billingdata,IPdata,serverdata,allphonenumbers,andcontactofanyoneassociatedwithaccountsortothespecifiedpeoplethatRandazzawantedpersonal,financialandintellectualpropertyinformationontobeexaminedonFeb.7th,2014.
20
-
TheExhibittothissubpoenawasaDistrictofNevadadocumentstatingfurtherpersona,private,andfinancialdatathatRLGwascommandingthatGodaddyturnovertotheminregardtoCrystalCox.ThisSubpoenagaveRLGaccesstotheprivateandfinancialinformationofpornindustryinsiders,whistleblowerssuchasMonicaFosteraKaAlexandraMayerandDianaGrandmason,bothexposingRLGandtheirconnectionstoOrganizedCrimeinthePornIndustry,prostitutionforcedonpornactors,pedophilesconnectedtoRLGandtheactivitiesoftheFreeSpeechCoalitionandRLGtomovethepornindustrytoLasVegas.ThisSubpoenaalsogaveRLGaccesstotheprivatedataandfinancialinformationofiViewitinventorEliotBernstein.OnJanuary27th2014,RandazzaLegalGroup(RLG)issuedaDistrictofNevadasubpoenatoVerizonWireless,theactualSubpoenaisDistrictofNorthernTexas,thissubpoenacommandsVerizon,thoughKlemchukKubastaLLP8150N.CentralExpressway,10thFloorDallas,TXtobeallowedtoinspectdocumentsrequestedonFebruary10th,2014.TheExhibittothesubpoena,aDistrictofNevadadocumentCOMMANDINGthatVerizongiveMarcRandazza,Mypersonalprivateinformation,phonenumbers,personalcalls,businesscalls,billingandpaymentinformation,datathatbreachestheprivacyofcountlessindividualsandcompanies,lawyers,media,clients,customer,andmyfriends.ThissubpoenaalsogaveRandazzaaccesstophonenumbersanddataofsourceswhomhadtoldCoxofissuesoforganizedcrime,prostitutionandmoreinwhichCoxwasreportingonconnectedtoRLG,theFreeSpeechCoalitionandtheOrganizedCrimeinPorn.Includingdelicateandprivateinformation,texts,phonenumbers,contactsofthosewhohavebeenthreatenedbyRLGandconnections.TheSubpoenaalsorequestedallothernumbersontheaccounttherebyunjustlydataminingCoxsfamily,friend,businesspartners,andpersonalrelationships.TheSubpoenaalsoallowedRandazzatoaccesswhomayhelpCoxpayherbills,orhelphertohaveaphone.AsCoxhasnomoney,nohomeandispennilessduetotherelentlessactionsofCox.Thiscompromisestheprivateinformationofthosehelping
21
-
Coxtohavealifeline,aphone.ThiscouldalsogiveRLGaccesstowhereCoxislocatedatalltimesandasCoxhasstatedmanytimestothecourts,mylifeisinandhadbeenindanger,underconstantduressandthreatsbythoseinthepornindustryconnectedtoRandazzaandthisispotentiallylifeordeathtoCoxandhersources.CoxclaimsRandazzaissuedafalseinstrument,impersonatedaSubpoenaandhascausedCoxandthoseconnectedtoherirreparableharm.RandazzausedhisroleinthiscaseandasanofficerofthecourttogetpeopleinCoxslifetogivehimprivateinformationinwhichheused,nottowinthiscase,buttosetCoxupforthecrimeofextortion,andtobroadcastwhathefoundsuchasprivatechurchtrips,moneyCoxgotinhandouts,andusedhispowertoexposeCoxspersonallife,homeaddress,phonenumber,clients,thosesheministerstoandhersourcesinsidethepornindustry.RandazzagotsubpoenastogetpersonalinformationofDianaGrandmason,certifiedhumantraffickingvictimandMonicaFoster,adultindustryinsiderandinvestigativeblogger,thishadnothingtodowiththelanhamact,trademarkorthemeritsofthiscase.OnJanuary31st2014CoxAppealedherNinthCircuitCaseWin:ID:8961401DocketEntry:48,JudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.HurwitzhadaccusedCoxofhavingahistoryofextortionatebehaviorinaNinthCircuitruling.ThiswasnotadjudicatedfactnorapartoftheObsidianv.Coxcaseorappeal.JudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.HurwitzsimplyusedaNinthCircuitrulingtopaintCoxasacriminaltotheworld.ThiscasefilingsoughtaretractionofthewordsinwhichweretakenfromNewYorkTimesarticle,whichwashearsayandstatedthatIhadahistoryofpostingonlineandthenseekingaretraction.OfwhichIhadnohistorywhatsoeverbeforethiscasepaintedmeinthatfalselight,withdeliberate,maliciousintention.ThiscasefilingENRAGEDmyformerattorneyMarcRandazza.AshisWIPOcase,hiscaseintheDistrictofNevadaagainstme,hisinterviewswithNPR,theNewYorkTimesandForbesandhisstatementstomanylegalbloggersandmultiplemediawouldallbe
22
-
discreditedifthejudgesretractedthisdefamatorystatementthathadNOrelevancetothecase.Somyformerattorney,wholegally,morally,constitutionallyandethicallywassworntoNOTseekthatiswhichinoppositionofmybestinterest,filedahateful,rageful,accusatory,defamatoryAmicusBrieftotheNinthCircuitAGAINSTme.OnFebruary3rd2014,MarcRandazzaCox'sfiled,ObsidianFinanceGroup,LLCv.CrystalCox:BriefofAmicusCuriae,NinthCircuitCase:1235238ID:8964107DktEntry:493.
ItisunconstitutionalandunethicalforRandazzatofilecourtmotionssuchasthis,indirectoppositiontothebestinterestofhisformerclient.Notonlythat,heliedunderoathregardingme,hisformerclient.Knowingfullwellitwasfalse,Randazzaaccusedmeofextortinghim,whenclearlytheemailatExhibit17showsthatheknewIwasaskingforajob.RandazzadidthismaliciouslytoinfluenceahighercourtrulingandtofurtherruinanddefameCrystalCox.MarcRandazzausedtheNinthCircuitcourtsinafraudonthecourtactions,wherebyhedeliberatelyliedandmisledhighercourtJudgestoinfluencethemtoaccusemeofcriminalactivityofwhichIhadneverbeenunderinvestigationfororadjudicatedfor.OnFebruary26th,2014,MartinCain,anotherpersonIhadpreviouslyreportedon,filed:BRIEFOFAMICUSCURIAEMARTINCAIN,NinthCircuitCase:Case:1235238ID:8994409DocketEntry:551.TheAttorneywhofiledthisbriefwassoughtoutforandpaidforbyMarcRandazza.ThisAmicusBriefwasfiledby:AllanB.Gelbard,Esq.LawOfficesofAllanB.Gelbard15760VenturaBlvd.,Suite801Encino,CA91436AllanB.GelbardisacolleagueofRandazzaandwassecuredandpaidforbyMarcRandazzahimself.ThiswasindirectviolationofmyrightsasRandazzasformerclient.
23
-
OnoraboutMarch5th2014,MarcRandazza,myformerattorneyfiled,Randazzaetal.v.GoDaddyLLCetal.,casenumber20145636CA01,intheCircuitCourtfortheEleventhJudicialCircuitofFlorida.RandazzafiledthislawsuitinFlorida,asheisaFloridaattorneyaswell,andwantedtouseFloridalawsthatwouldfavorhisagendatoobtainmypersonalinformation,billinginformation,phoneinformation,andhomeaddress.Healsousedthislegalactiontoobtainprivateinformation,attackandharassEliotBernstein(iViewitInventor),PornIndustryBloggersandWhistleblowersDianaGrandmasonandAlexandraMayers.DianaGrandmasonisalsoaregisteredHumanTrafficVictim.Ioftenusedtheirblogsassourcesofpostsonmyblogs.Randazzaretaliatedagainstthemaswellforthis.DianaGrandmasonandAlexandraMayersareWhistleblowersandshouldhaveFederalandStateProtectioninthisregard.TheyareconstantlyharassedbyRandazzaLegalGroupandthoseconnectedtoMarcRandazzaaswellasRandazzahimself.These2womenarepornindustryinsidersandhavereportedonorganizedcrimeinthepornindustryforyears.Ihavepickedupafewoftheirstories,andhadRandazzadothesamethingtomeinwhichheandhisassociatesdidtothemandotherpornindustrywhistleblowers.Theyareinconstantdanger,underconstantthreatsandduressbyRandazzaandthoseconnectedtohim.Randazzaetal.v.GoDaddyLLCetal,Florida,wasalegalfilingforabillofpurediscovery,sohecouldsetusallupforthefelonycrimeofextortion,heclaimedtothemediaitwasto''bringextortionclaimsagainstagroupofindividualsallegedlybehindacollectionofdefamatorywebsites''.MarcRandazzaalsotoldmedia''thatagroupledbyCrystalL.Cox,abloggeratthecenterofanotablerecentdefamationcase,hasconspiredtoextortmoneyfromhimbybuyingwebsitedomainnamesrelatedtohisandhisfamilymembers'names,fillingthemwithfalseandharmfulstatementsandseekingpaymentforretractionsofthestatements''.Myformerattorney,didthismaliciouslyanddeliberately,knowingfullwellthatitwasnottrueinanyway.AndthatIhadbeengivennodueprocessontheseallegations.
24
-
Thislegalaction,Randazzaetal.v.GoDaddyLLCetal,targetedinformationfromGoDaddy,Web.comGroupInc.andSoftLayerTechnologiesInc.thatRandazzaclaimedwasrelevanttohisclaims.Yet,thiswasreallyusedtogetprivateinformationonusalltousetoattackusfurther,defameus,harassus,intimidateus,bullyusandsueusinothercourts.Andashehimselfhasstatedoverandover,tosetusupforthecrimeofextortionasagroup.AtthistimeRandazzatoldLaw360''Coxisawelldocumentedextortionist,Randazzasays,alsodescribingherasbyherownclaimhomelessandlivinginachurchproperty''RandazzaalsoclaimedtoLaw360that''Coxenlistedthehelpofotherindividuals,includingEliotI.BernsteinofFlorida,AlexanderaA.MayersofLasVegasandDianaGrandmaisonofFlorida''ANDTogether,thetortfeasorscontinuetoassistandaidoneanotherinpublishingfalseandharmfulstatementsaboutplaintiffsinaconstantlyshiftingconfigurationofstrawownershipinordertoavoiddetectionbyplaintiffs,legalliabilityfortheirunlawfulactionsandtoconcealthetrueownershipofthesewebsitesanddomainnames,Randazzasays.Myformerattorneyknewthiswasfalse,yetmaliciouslykeptuphisliferuiningharassmentcampaignagainstme.ThesetwowomenweretargetedinthesamewayasIwasandintheirresearchtheycameacrossme,andmethem.SoRandazzatargetedthemalongwithmetostiflefreespeech,toflatoutSTOPtheflowofinformationonlinethatpaintedhiminalessthanfavorablelight.RandazzaandhisAssociateshavestalkedAlexandraMayersandDianaGrandmasonforyears,andduetotheirconnectiontohigherupsinthePornIndustry,theyhavehadnoStateorFederalProtection.RandazzahaspostedthemakeandmodelofAlexandrascar,herhomeaddressandwishedheDeath.IhaveevenbeentoldthathehassaidthatifhethoughtitwouldonlykillherhewouldthrowaMolotovcocktailintoherhome.
25
-
OnoraboutMarchof2014,MarcRandazzacontactedpeopleIhadworkedfor,gotmypaydocumentsbythreateningtosuethem.Thenpostedthisincourtmotionswhichheleakedtoonlinemediaandisnowaccessibletotheworld.Myformerattorneygotmyinformationunethicallyandbyintimidatingpeopleandthenbroadcastittotheworldviacourtmotionshefiledthenpostedonhisandotherlegalblogsofhisconspirators.AroundthissametimeRandazza,harassed,threatened,bulliedandattackedmychurch.Hescaredthemintogivinghimmyhomeaddress,churchtrips,bankinginformation,phoneinformationandthenhepostedthisinformationonlineandincourtmotionswhichhiscoconspiratorsthenbroadcastworldwide.Allthisputmeindanger.AndthoughIcouldnotrentahomeduetoRandazzasdefamationnorgetanymoreclientstohaveanincome.FromthatpointIcouldnolongerlivinginthechurchhousing,asIwasinfearofmylife,IwasfollowedbyaPrivateInvestigatorhiredbyMarcRandazza,andunderconstantbullyingandattacksfromhisassociatesviaphone,text,email,threatstomykneecaps,threatstocomingtomyhome,andconstantonlinehateandextremedefamation.SinceMayof2013Ihavebeenhomeless,havingbeenunabletoliveinchurchhousingorrentahome.Ihavenowaytomakealiving,andeatviasocialprogramsandchurchhandouts.Alsoaroundthistime,Randazzacontactedandbullied,threatentosue,andharassedmyexs,myformerchurchassociates,andotherpeopleandthreatenedtosuethemiftheydidnottellhimalltheyknewaboutme.RandazzausedhisNevadaSLAPPsuitagainstmeashisauthoritytothesefolkstomakethemgivehimmyprivateinformationwhichheusedtoharmme.OnMarch12th2014(Document1811),DistrictofNevadaRandazav.Cox,myformerattorneyRandazzafiledyetanothersworndeclarationwiththecourt,andflatoutliedinthiscourtdocuments,thatCoxhadExtortedhimandhisfamily.
26
-
Exhibit17isanEmailfromMarcRandazzatohisformerclientCrystalCoxthatproveshedidnotthinkhisclient'semailtohimwastryingtoextorthim,butinsteadmerelyaskingforajob.OnApril10th,2014RandazzafiledaSLAPPlawsuitagainstPornIndustryInsider,WhistleBlowerandInvestigativeBloggerAlexandraMelodyMayersinDistrictCourt,ClarkCounty,Nevada,EighthJudicialDistrict,CaseA14699072C.Thislawsuitwastosuppressherspeech,shutdownherblogsandremoveherparodyofhimonline.Itwasalsotoharassher,bankrupther,intimidateherandteachheralesson.MyformerattorneyMarcRandazzahadclaimedthatIownedRandazzaNews.comandthatIhadcreatedaparodyofhisdaughter30yearsintothefuture.YethethensuedAlexandraMayers,claimingitwasher.Randazzasuedhetostifleherspeech,shutdownherblogsspeakingcriticalofhimandstoptheflowofinformationonlineregardinghimandhiswifeJenniferRandazza.Randazzav.MayersA14699072C,DistrictCourt,ClarkCounty,Nevada,EighthJudicialDistrict,Department32,wasfiledinordertoteachAlexandraMayersalessonforsupportingme,andhelpingtokeepmevisibleandsafefromthoseinthepornindustrywhohadthreatenedme,intimidatedme,bulliedmeandconstantlyattackedmeonline.ThiscasewasforDefamationandFalseLight,andwasaSLAPPsuitdesignedtochillthespeechofthisbloggerwhomhadtriedtohelpmestaysafe.NevadaattorneyMarcJ.Randazza,hasbeeninvolvedinprostitution,organizedcrime,andpornography.Allwhotryandreportonhimareshutdownsomehowbyhimandhisassociates.OnApril8th2014,IfiledaSupremeCourtAppealregardingNinthCircuitCase:1235238ID:8964107wherebyJudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.Hurwitz,accusedmeofhavingahistoryofpostingthingsonlineandseekingmoneyforaretraction.ThiswasflatoutfalseandbasedonlyonaNewYorkTimesarticle,ofwhichRandazzahimselfhadcreatedthemediastormthatpaintedme,hisformerclientouttobeacriminalextortionistandhebroughtinIViewitVideoTechnologyInventorEliotBernstein.ThiscasewasDocketedonApril16,2014,withtheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,seeCrystalCox,Petitionerv.ObsidianFinanceGroup,LLC,etal.Case(1235238,1235319)
27
-
ATthistimeRandazzav.CoxisstillgoingoninthestateofNevada.IcannotaffordanattorneyandsimplydothebestIcantocontinuetofightformylifeandstandupformyrightsandtherightsofRandazzasothervictims.
NevadaRulesofProfessionalConductRandazzaViolated
CLIENTLAWYERRELATIONSHIP
Randazzadidnotabidebymydecisionsconcerningrepresentation.Hedidnotconsultwithmebeforeproposingadealallegedlyonmybehalfandinmybestinterestwiththeopposition,andhesoughtEXTREMEretaliationwhenIchosetolongerhavehimrepresentmeashisclient.ThisisaViolationofRule1.2.Randazzadidnotabidebymywishesofwantingtoappealandpursuedasettlementwiththeoppositionofwhichhedidnotincludemeinthedetailsofthisnegotiation.RandazzaactedinrepresentationsofCox,withoutinformedconsent.AndthereforeviolatedRule1.2RandazzadidnotdiscusswithmeanyactionsthathethoughtImayhavetakenthathethoughtwerecriminal,ofwhich,asmyattorneyheisobligatedto.Insteadheusedhispoweroverthecourtsandhiscloutwiththemediatodefameme,andabusememassivestressandirreparableharm.IfhethoughtIengagedinanycriminalactivity,itwashislawfulandethicaldutytodiscussthiswithme,insteadofsimplytelltheworldandthecourtsIwasguiltyofacrimewithnoadjudicationordueprocess.Rule1.2.ScopeofRepresentationandAllocationofAuthorityBetweenClientandLawyer.(a)Subjecttoparagraphs(c)and(d),alawyershallabidebyaclientsdecisionconcerningtheobjectivesofrepresentationand,asrequiredbyRule1.4,shallconsultwiththeclientastothemeansbywhichtheyaretobepursued.Alawyermaytakesuchactiononbehalfoftheclientasisimpliedlyauthorizedtocarryouttherepresentation.Alawyershallabidebyaclients
28
-
decisionwhethertosettleamatter.(b)Alawyersrepresentationofaclient,includingrepresentationbyappointment,doesnotconstituteanendorsementoftheclientspolitical,economic,socialormoralviewsoractivities.(c)Alawyermaylimitthescopeoftherepresentationifthelimitationisreasonableunderthecircumstancesandtheclientgivesinformedconsent.(d)Alawyershallnotcounselaclienttoengage,orassistaclient,inconductthatthelawyerknowsiscriminalorfraudulent,butalawyermaydiscussthelegalconsequencesofanyproposedcourseofconductwithaclientandmaycounselorassistaclienttomakeagoodfaithefforttodeterminethevalidity,scope,meaningorapplicationofthelaw.Rule1.5.Fees.Randazzaviolatedrule1.5ashetoldmehewasrepresentingmeforFREE,ProBono,thenheturnedaroundandwantedmoneytotravel,tofiledocuments,forhotelsandmore.KnowingfullwellthatIhadNOMONEY.
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 knee caps, text threatening of knowing
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 my personal information and home address to
the 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 a client. Therefore he
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 commission of which the lawyers
services have been or are being used, but the lawyer 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 lawyer in a
controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a
defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer
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 ownership of a firm, but only
if the revealed
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 lawyer reasonably believes necessary
to prevent a criminal act that the lawyer believes
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 also a conflict of interest for Randazza Legal Group to
represent Marc Randazza in suing his 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 not have
sued me, nor represented himself doing so with the same law firm
that
representedmeprior.Rule1.7wasclearlyviolatedbyRandazzaRule1.7(a)Except
as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client
if the representation
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 reasonably believes
that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and
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)A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a
client or knowingly acquire
anownership,possessory,securityorotherpecuniaryinterestadversetoaclientunless:
(1)The transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the
interest are fair and
31
-
reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted
in writing in a manner that can be 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, including whether the lawyer is
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 or media
rights to a portrayal or account based
insubstantialpartoninformationrelatingtotherepresentation. (e)A
lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in
connection with pending orcontemplatedlitigation,exceptthat: (1)A
lawyer may advance court costs and expenses of litigation, the
repayment of which 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 client from one other than
theclientunless: (1)Theclientgivesinformedconsent (2)There is no
interference with the lawyers independence of professional judgment
or 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
disclosure shall include the existence and nature of all
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 writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a
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 on any
appearance, appeal,
orotherbondorsuretyinanycaseinwhichthelawyeriscounsel. (m)While
lawyers are associated in a firm, a prohibition in the foregoing
paragraphs,
32
-
withtheexceptionofparagraph(j),thatappliestoanyoneofthemshallapplytoallofthem.
[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]
AttorneyMarcRandazzastolemyintellectualproperty,defamedmeintentionallyandmaliciously,andcausedmeserioushardship.MarcRandazzadidnothaveacontractwherehelinedoutanyfees,yetheexpectedmetopayforthingsofwhichIhadnorealunderstandingandclaimedtoberepresentingmeProBono,forFREE.MarcRandazzausedprivateinformation,privilegedinformationagainstme.MarcRandazzahadnorighttoportraymetothemediaashedid.MarcRandazzaalsoviolatedtheaboveruleintryingtonegotiatedeals,settlementandrepresentationmattersWITHOUTmyconsentorknowledge.ICLEARLYdidnotgiveMarcRandazzainformedconsent.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.ThisviolatesRule1.9Marc Randazza used
inside and privileged information he gained while representing me,
against
metosueme.WhichviolatesRule1.9.MarcRandazzausedinformationagainstmetomydisadvantage.Whichviolatesthisrule.Marc
Randazza acquired protected information from me then used this to
defame me, set me up 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 lawyer shall
not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially
related 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 and
1.9(c) thatismaterialtothematter
(3)Unlesstheformerclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting.
(c)A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or
whose present or
formerfirmhasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamattershallnotthereafter:
(1)Use information relating to the representation to the
disadvantage of the former client 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 as these Rules would permit
orrequirewithrespecttoaclient.
Rule1.10.ImputationofConflictsofInterest.
Marc Randazza and his law firm RLG violated 1.10 in
representing, Marc Randazza and his wife
andchildinsuingme,theirformerclient.(a)While lawyers are associated
in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when 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 and
1.9(c) thatismaterialtothematter. (c)A disqualification prescribed
by this Rule may be waived by the affected client under
theconditionsstatedinRule1.7. (d)Reserved.
34
-
(e)When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, no lawyer
associated in the firm shall 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 notice
is promptly given to any affected former client to enable it to
ascertain compliancewiththeprovisionsofthisRule.
[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]
Rule1.12.FormerJudge,Arbitrator,MediatororOtherThirdPartyNeutral.
Even if Marc Randazza did not believe he represented me, which
he falsely claims, then he was 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 officer may 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 timely screened from any
participation in the matter and is
apportionednopartofthefeetherefromand (2)Written notice is promptly
given to the parties and any appropriate tribunal to enable
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 not my
attorney. Yet he emailed me that 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 knew this
full
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 to provide information that caused me harm.
Andtodosodeliberatelywithmaliciousintent.Mr.Randazzaclaims,underoath,thathewasnotmyattorney.Ifullybelievehewas.However,ifheweretoconvincethisboardthathewasnotmyattorney,thenclearlyhewasbrokeringdealsallegedlyonmybehalf,clearlyhewasworkingwithotherattorneys(EugeneVolokh)andwiththecourtstofileamotionforanewtrial,astheemailevidenceshows,andinthiswasatleastathirdpartyneutral,amediator,orIwasapotentialclient.Inthatheowedmeadutytonotharmme,notpostmyprivateemailstohim,notpaintmeouttotheworldtobeacriminalwithnoadjudicatedfacts,notoffertotestifyagainstme,notfileamicusbriefsinoppositiontomybestinterest,notlieaboutmeanddefameme,protectmyrightsandstrategyinmycase,andactwithintegrityastomybestinterest.IfRandazzawasnotmyattorney,thenhewasnegotiatingwiththeopposition,givingthemmysecrets,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 use or reveal that
information, except as Rule 1.9
wouldpermitwithrespecttoinformationofaformerclient. (c)A lawyer
subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with
interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in
the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer 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 representation under this paragraph, no
lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may 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 in paragraph (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 than was reasonably necessary to determine whether
torepresenttheprospectiveclientand (i)The disqualified lawyer is
timely screened from any participation in the matter
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 the lawyers subsequent use of
information received from 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 or law firm may furnish such additional factual information
regarding the lawyerorlawfirmdeemedvaluabletoassisttheclient. (3)If
the information furnished to the client includes a fee contract,
the top of each page 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. Even if Marc Randazza was NOT my
attorney as he claims 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 lawyer shall exercise independent
professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering
advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other
considerations such as moral, economic, social and political
factors, that may be relevant totheclientssituation.
[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]
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 effect on the attorneyclient
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 of any of
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)While
acting as intermediary, the lawyer shall consult with each client
concerning the 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 any of the clients so requests, or if any of the
conditions stated in subsection 1 is no longer satisfied. Upon
withdrawal, the lawyer shall not
continuetorepresentanyoftheclientsinthematterthatwasthesubjectoftheintermediation.
[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]
MODELRULECOMPARISON2006
Rule 2.2 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 168) is based on 1983
Model Rule 2.2. The ABA House of Delegates deleted Model Rule 2.2
and incorporated it into the comments to Model Rule 1.7 in 2002.
The Rule has been retained in Nevada because Nevada has not adopted
comments to
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.
[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]
MODELRULECOMPARISON2006
Rule2.3(formerlySupremeCourtRule169)isthesameasABAModelRule2.3.Rule2.4.LawyerServingasThirdPartyNeutral.
(a)A lawyer serves as a thirdparty neutral when the lawyer assists
two or more persons who are not clients of the lawyer to reach a
resolution of a dispute or other matter that has arisen between
them. Service as a thirdparty neutral may include service as an
arbitrator, a mediator or
insuchothercapacityaswillenablethelawyertoassistthepartiestoresolvethematter.
(b)A lawyer serving as a thirdparty neutral shall inform
unrepresented parties that the lawyer is not representing them.
When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that a party 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 my advocate. He spoke with other
attorneys, my colleagues, and he told 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
Amendment Rights, my rights of due process and acted
inextremeagainstmybestinterest.Marc Randazza put me in danger,
rendered me homeless and with no way to rent a home nor to 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 and I lost all business and
personalconnections.Marc Randazza violated Rule 3.1 in bringing
claims against me. And in attempting to set me up
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 the defendant in a criminal proceeding,
or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in
incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the
proceedingastorequirethateveryelementofthecasebeestablished.
39
-
MarcRandazzaviolatedrule3.7inofferingtobedeposedfortheoppositioninmyappealcase.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 which another lawyer
in the lawyers firm
islikelytobecalledasawitnessunlessprecludedfromdoingsobyRule1.7orRule1.9.
[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]
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
not limited to: WIPO, Forbes, NPR, the New York Times, the Ninth
Circuit court, Florida District Court, Nevada State and Federal
Court, multiple legal bloggers and law firms, forensic
investigators, my friend, my exs, my pastor, my church, my phone
vendor, my domain 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 material fact to a third person when disclosure is
necessary to avoid
assistingacriminalorfraudulentactbyaclient,unlessdisclosureisprohibitedbyRule1.6.
[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]
Rule4.4.RespectforRightsofThirdPersons. Marc Randazza
deliberately and with clear intention used every mean he could to
embarrass, delay, and burden third parties to get private personal
information about me. He did this in regard 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 substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or
burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that
violatethelegalrightsofsuchaperson. (b)A lawyer who receives a
document or electronically stored information relating to the
representation of the lawyers client and knows or reasonably should
know that the document or
electronicallystoredinformationwasinadvertentlysentshallpromptlynotifythesender.MarcRandazzaalsoviolatedRule4.4intakingmyprivateemailtohimandsendingittomedia,tolegalbloggersandclaimingitwasextortion.KnowingfullwellthatthefullemailthreadshowedhimsayingthatheknewIwasaskingforajob.
LAWFIRMSANDASSOCIATIONS
Rule5.1.ResponsibilitiesofPartners,Managers,andSupervisoryLawyers.
(a)A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or
together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial
authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure
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.
[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]
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 Randazza violated my rights in violations of
this rule as I was clearly mislead as to what he 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 shall not make a
false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the
lawyers services. A communication 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 unreasonable expectation about
results the lawyer 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.]
MODELRULECOMPARISON2007
Rule 7.1 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 195) is the same as ABA
Model Rule 7.1 except that paragraphs (b) through (d) are Nevada
specific and have no counterpart in the Model Rule. The
2007amendmentschangedlanguageinparagraphs(b)and(d)only.Rule7.2.Advertising.
(a)Subject to the requirements of Rule 7.1, a lawyer may advertise
services through the 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 with the 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 of fictionalized events or
scenes, the same must be disclosed. In the event actors are used,
the disclosure must be sufficiently specific to identify which
persons in the advertisement are actors, and the disclosure must
appear for the duration in which the actor(s)
appearintheadvertisement. (c)All advertisements and written
communications disseminated pursuant to these Rules
shallidentifythenameofatleastonelawyerresponsiblefortheircontent.
(d)Every advertisement and written communication that indicates one
or more areas of
lawinwhichthelawyerorlawfirmpracticesshallconformtotherequirementsofRule7.4.
(e)Every advertisement and written communication indicating that
the charging of a fee 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 specific fee or range of fees shall
include the duration said 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, the advertised fee or
range of fees shall be honored for no less than one
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 to which
such required statement or disclaimer relates provided, however,
the mere statement that a particular language is spoken or
understood
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 the gross amount received is stated, the
attorney fees and litigation
expenseswithheldfromtheamountmustbestatedaswell.
RandazzahasDutiestoCoxasaformerclientMarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupowedmeaduty,astandardofcare,andhadobligationstomeasaformerclient.MarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupviolatedRule1.9andseriouslyactedadverselyagainstme.Rule1.9.DutiestoFormerClients.
43
-
(a)Alawyerwhohasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamattershallnotthereafterrepresentanotherpersoninthesameorasubstantiallyrelatedmatterinwhichthatpersonsinterestsaremateriallyadversetotheinterestsoftheformerclientunlesstheformerclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting.(b)Alawyershallnotknowinglyrepresentapersoninthesameorasubstantiallyrelatedmatterinwhichafirmwithwhichthelawyerformerlywasassociatedhadpreviouslyrepresentedaclient:(1)Whoseinterestsaremateriallyadversetothatpersonand(2)AboutwhomthelawyerhadacquiredinformationprotectedbyRules1.6and1.9(c)thatismaterialtothematter(3)Unlesstheformerclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting.(c)Alawyerwhohasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamatterorwhosepresentorformerfirmhasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamattershallnotthereafter:(1)UseinformationrelatingtotherepresentationtothedisadvantageoftheformerclientexceptastheseRuleswouldpermitorrequirewithrespecttoaclient,orwhentheinformationhasbecomegenerallyknownor(2)RevealinformationrelatingtotherepresentationexceptastheseRuleswouldpermitorrequirewithrespecttoaclient.[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]Rule1.7.ConflictofInterest:CurrentClients.(a)Exceptasprovidedinparagraph(b),alawyershallnotrepresentaclientiftherepresentationinvolvesaconcurrentconflictofinterest.Aconcurrentconflictofinterestexistsif:(1)Therepresentationofoneclientwillbedirectlyadversetoanotherclientor(2)Thereisasignificantriskthattherepresentationofoneormoreclientswillbemateriallylimitedbythelawyersresponsibilitiestoanotherclient,aformerclientorathirdpersonorbyapersonalinterestofthelawyer.(b)Notwithstandingtheexistenceofaconcurrentconflictofinterestunderparagraph(a),alawyermayrepresentaclientif:(1)Thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatthelawyerwillbeabletoprovidecompetentanddiligentrepresentationtoeachaffectedclient(2)Therepresentationisnotprohibitedbylaw(3)Therepresentationdoesnotinvolvetheassertionofaclaimbyoneclientagainstanotherclientrepresentedbythelawyerinthesamelitigationorotherproceedingbeforeatribunaland
44
-
(4)Eachaffectedclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting.[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]MarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupviolatedRule1.7inrepresentinghimandhisfamilyinsuingme,aformerclient,andviol