• Report: #1112488

Complaint Review: (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE)))

  • Submitted: Thu, January 02, 2014
  • Updated: Wed, May 13, 2015

  • Reported By: CrystalCox — Port Townsend Washington
(((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE)))
(((REDACTED))) Las Vegas, Nevada USA

Crystal Cox case in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction”(((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) Attorney is Unethical, Betrays his Clients, Violates Attorney Client Privilege, Lies in Court Documents, Defames Clients in Mass Media, and Violates the Constitutional Rights of whomever he pleases. Las Vegas Nevada***Update: Must-read blog post about the First Amendment   

*Consumer Comment: ((((REDACTED)))) Defends Racism, Hate, and all in the Name of Free Speech, though He CONSTANTLY Suppresses FREE Speech of those who Speak Critical of HIM.

*Consumer Comment: District Court State of Nevada, County of Clark Eighth Judicial District A-14-69 8267- C

*Consumer Comment: More CENSORSHIP from ((((REDACTED)))) and ((((REDACTED))))

*Consumer Comment: "Investigate pornography attorney ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) and his affiliation with the Libertarian Party of Nevada & Convicted Pedophile August Kurt Brackob aka Kurt Treptow. "

*Consumer Comment: Crystal Cox Granted Counter Complaint Filing Against ((((REDACTED))))

*Consumer Comment: (((REDACTED))) wishes Cox to Succeed. (((REDACTED))) says People Like Cox are important.

*Consumer Comment: ((((REDACTED)))) is a Dangerous Man. ((((REDACTED)))) Connections

*Consumer Comment: ((((REDACTED))))  continues to threaten, bully, stalk, commit fraud on the courts, issue non-proper subpoenas to get personal information and abuse his power as an attorney. ((((REDACTED)))) is a Dangerous B

*Consumer Comment: ((((REDACTED)))) , ((((REDACTED))))  and Ronald Green use the Power of a Subpoena as fraud on the courts and data mine for private personal information.

*Consumer Comment: ((((REDACTED))))  Crystal Cox and the use of Preliminary Injunctions as a tool to Chill Speech and silence Whistle Blowers

*Consumer Comment: ((((REDACTED)))) Rants Extortion and Toddler Attack But files a Civil Suit against a Penniless Blogger instead of a Criminal Complaint, WHY?

*Consumer Comment: Crystal Cox on ((((REDACTED))))Ninth Circuit Rant and What Drives ((((REDACTED)))).

*Consumer Comment: ((((REDACTED))))Says, The Greatest Threat to Free Speech is Wealthy Plaintiff's using the courts to intimidate ordinary people. That is Exactly what ((((REDACTED)))) is constantly doing to Crystal Cox.

*Consumer Comment: Ken White, Brown White & Newhouse talks about iViewit in his Rebuttal. Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com is attempting to protect those infringing on the iViewit Technology.

*Consumer Comment: WIPO, Peter L. Michaelson, ((((REDACTED)))) , Francis Gurry WIPO and Edward Kwakwa WIPO have knowingly used WIPO's world publication power to defame, harass and attack iViewit inventor Eliot Bernstein

*Consumer Comment: Tracy Coenan, ((((REDACTED)))) , and Ken White of Brown, White and Newhouse CENSOR Crystal Cox

*Consumer Comment: Crystal Cox Blogger; Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations by Overreaching Judges. Motion Filed to Reconsider, Redact, Rehear

*Author of original report: Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations; Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK Against Extortion Allegations in Judicial Ruling

*Consumer Comment: Free Speech Attorney ((((REDACTED)))) Has Blog Removed that talked About Crystal Cox's Lawsuit Against Him

*Consumer Comment: Attorney ((((REDACTED)))) CONTROL Facebook; ((((REDACTED)))) CENSORS Crystal Cox Again and Violates My First Amendment Rights in the Process

*Consumer Comment: Kashmir Hill Forbes CENSORS Crystal Cox

*Consumer Comment: ((((REDACTED)))) Continues to CENSOR Me, Now Facebook Page set to Shut Down

*Consumer Comment: First Amendment Rights Attorney ((((REDACTED)))) gets Google to Shut down blog that Speaks Critical of Him.

*Consumer Comment: Kashmir Hill, Journalist used Forbes to knowingly Defame and Attack Blogger Crystal Cox. Kashmir Hill reported falsely on Crystal Cox and accused her of criminal activity knowing it was FALSE.

*Author of original report: ((((REDACTED)))) , Peter L. Michaelson, Tonkon Torp David Aman, Kashmir Hill Forbes, WIPO and the Free Speech Case of Blogger Crystal Cox.

*Consumer Comment: ((((REDACTED)))) named in RICO, Racketeering Lawsuit in MAJOR Technology Theft Case out of New York

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

By Ken White


This is how the rule of law works: we extend rights to the very people who would deny us those rights if they had the chance.


Ariel Castro imprisoned young women in his basement without anything resembling due process, but he got a lawyer and his days in court until he thoughtfully offed himself. We protected the Nazis' right to march at Skokie, and say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, dude, but it doesn't protect the free speech or assembly rights of others. We protect the right of Fred Phelps' family to protest at funerals even though the America of Phelps' dreams is a theocratic hellhole.


So it shouldn't be any surprise that we protect the free speech rights of the disturbed and vengeful blogger Crystal Cox, even though she abuses the legal system in an effort to censor and retaliate against people for criticizing her. That's how we roll. Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Crystal Cox's First Amendment rights, and in doing so protected yours, and mine, in important ways.


This post is about that decision, and about what Crystal Cox was doing to undercut the First Amendment while the Ninth Circuit was thinking about it. As you will see below, I am one of the people Cox has tried to silence with frivolous litigation even as courts were protecting her right to speak.



Chapter One: The Ninth Circuit Protects Crystal Cox, And In Doing So Protects The Speech of All Citizens



  • Cox Attacks Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group


Back in 2008, a bankruptcy court appointed Kevin Padrick as the trustee of a company called Summit Accommodators, Inc., which was seeking bankruptcy protection as it reorganized. Padrick, an expert on distressed businesses at a financial services firm called Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, was well qualified for the job. No court, and no sane person, has ever found that he did it wrong. To his great misfortune, Cox somehow heard about him and decided that he was a wrongdoer. This is how the Ninth Circuit describes what happened next:


After Padrick’s appointment, Crystal Cox published blog posts on several websites that she created, accusing Padrick and Obsidian of fraud, corruption, money-laundering, and other illegal activities in connection with the Summit bankruptcy. Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech, N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. Padrick and Obsidian sent Cox a cease-and-desist letter, but she continued posting allegations.

More on that extortion allegation soon. Cox attacked Padrick and Obsidian Finance with a flurry of posts on sites like "obsidianfinancesucks.com," where she made extravagant and mostly incoherent accusations of wrongdoing without factual support. So Padrick and Obsidian Finance sued her.



  • Cox Loses In The Trial Court, Which Gets It Wrong


Padrick sued in United States District Court in Oregon. Cox acted like an archetypical disturbed pro se litigant throughout, filing a bizarre cross-complaint against not only Padrick and Obsidian Finance and their lawyers but also everyone else who had annoyed her recently.


United States District Judge Marco Hernandez eventually made two crucial rulings. One was right, and one was wrong. First, Judge Hernandez found that many of Cox's posts were statements of opinion, not statements of fact, and therefore could not be defamation. Those posts "used figurative and hyperbolic language and could not be proved true or false."


As I frequently discuss here, only provably false statements of fact can be defamatory. Hyperbole and mere rhetoric, or statements of opinion that can't be interpreted as implying provably false facts, cannot. Judge Hernandez' first decision was right. Second, Judge Hernandez wrongly limited Cox's defenses. Judge Hernandez found that one of Cox's posts could be taken as implying a provably false statement of fact: on one of her attack sites, bankruptcycorruption.com, she claimed that Padrick failed in his duty as trustee to pay taxes on substantial amount of money owed by Summit. Judge Hernandez let that claim go to the jury, and the jury found that the statement was false and harmful, and awarded $1.5 million to Padrick and $1 million to Obsidian Finance. But Judge Hernandez incorrectly instructed the jury on the law, so they didn't know what standard should govern their decision. In short, Judge Hernandez didn't require Padrick and Obsidian Finance to prove, or the jury to find, that Cox got it wrong deliberately, or recklessly, or even negligently. To the contrary, he instructed the jury like this: "Defendant’s knowledge of whether the statements at issue were true or false and defendant’s intent or purpose in publishing those statements are not elements of the claim and are not relevant to the determination of liability.” That decision was wrong. That decision flew in the face of Supreme Court precedent.


First, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held fifty years ago that when someone makes a false statement about a public official's official conduct, the official can't prove defamation without proving actual malice -- that is, without proving that the defendant acted knowing that the statement was false or reckless disregard as to its truth. Moreover, even private figures can't prove defamation merely by showing that a statement made about them was false.


In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Supreme Court held that even a private figure must prove, at least, that a false fact was uttered negligently to prevail on a defamation claim. In other words, defamation liability may not be imposed at all without some showing of fault.[note]The possible exception, as noted below, is speech about a purely private figure on an issue of purely private interest. But even that exception might not exist.[/note] So why did Judge Hernandez decide that way?


He issued an order on the issue during the trial ruling that the Sullivan "actual malice" standard did not apply because Padrick and Obsidian Finance were not public figures or public officials. That's not the troubling part. Judge Hernandez also found that the plaintiffs need not even prove negligence under the Gertz standard, because Cox could not show that she was "media" or a professional journalist. That was the basis of his decision that Padrick and Obsidian Finance could prevail merely by showing that Cox's post was wrong and harmful, and that they need not show any level of fault. The finding was invited by Cox -- she argued that Gertz ought to apply because she should be considered "media," when in fact Gertz should apply to everybody.


This ruling was widely reported in the media as a federal judge finding that a blogger is not a journalist, which is a bit of an oversimplification. After trial -- perhaps in part because of widespread media coverage, and perhaps in part because Cox was by then competently represented instead of representing herself -- Judge Hernandez modified his position in the course of denying Cox's motion for a new trial, stating more explicitly that the Gertz standard only applies to "media" defendants, and that a private plaintiff need not necessarily prove that a private defendant acted negligently in making a false statement. That was wrong.



  • The Ninth Circuit Gets It Right and Eliminates the False Distinction Between "Media" and Citizens


The estimable Eugene Volokh represented Crystal Cox pro bono on appeal, and achieved a result that protected not just Cox, but all of us. The Ninth Circuit opinion is here. Notably, on appeal, Cox did not dispute that her accusation against Padrick and Obsidian Finance was false and harmful. The Ninth Circuit did one crucial thing and one fairly important thing. The crucial thing was rejecting the false distinction between "media" defendants and citizen defendants. The Ninth Circuit held that the Sullivan and Gertz standards apply whether the defendant is "media" or a "professional journalist" or not. If someone sues you for what you write or say about them, they will have to prove some level of fault -- whether it's negligence (if the plaintiff is a private figure) or actual malice (if the plaintiff is a public figure or official, or the speech is on a matter of public concern). Quoth the Ninth Circuit:


The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue—not the identity of the speaker—provide the First Amendment touchstones.

The Ninth Circuit noted that there might be one remaining area where Gertz does not apply and a defamation plaintiff does not need to prove even negligence -- if the plaintiff is a private figure and the speech is not on a matter of public concern. But the court found it need not decide that legal question, because Cox's posts were on issues of public concern -- they were about allegations of a crime against a trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding. The court noted that "[p]ublic allegations that someone is involved in crime generally are speech on a matter of public concern" and "even consumer complaints of non-criminal conduct by a business can constitute matters of public concern." That means that the limitations on Gertz -- if they exist[note]I think the better rule is that Gertz applies without regard to whether the speech is of "public interest." It's not clear to me how a false statement could be both "on a subject of purely private interest" and actually harmful to the reputation of the subject. Plus, a more robustly speech-protective rule protects everyone.[/note] -- are narrow. The court rejected, however, Cox's argument that Padrick and Obsidian Finance should be treated as public figures or public officials, triggering the Sullivan actual malice standard, just because Padrick was appointed by a court.


The Ninth Circuit's fairly important achievement was firmly supporting the distinction between statements of fact (which may be defamatory) and statements of opinion or hyperbole (which may not). Rejecting Padrick's cross-appeal, they agreed with Judge Hernandez that Cox's other posts could not be taken as statements of provable fact and therefore could not be defamatory. The Ninth Circuit is polite and professional and would never put it this way, but I will: the court articulated the Batshit-Crazy Rule.[note]I am aware some people may take offense to that turn of phrase. I have written rather bluntly before about what it is like to suffer from major depression.


I am sympathetic, generally, to social prejudice against mental illness. But I am unsympathetic about the sensibilities of people who use mental illness as an excuse or vector to abuse the persons and rights of others. Sorry.[/note] Cox's posts attacking people -- Padrick, attorneys who have opposed her, bloggers and journalists who have angered her, me -- come off as batshit-crazy. They make flamboyant and bizarre accusations that normal people would not credit.[note]For instance, for the record, I have not engaged in a conspiracy to murder adult entertainment performers.[/note] They do so on vividly-named sites, and employ an entire Souplantation's worth of word-salad. They recursively cite each other, or Cox's filings, rather than citing facts or evidence. They carry all the hallmarks of pervasive mental illness -- but also, and more importantly for First Amendment purposes, hyperbole, bluster, and opinion. The Ninth Circuit put this in more genteel fashion. The court explained it looks to three questions in determining whether a statement is fact or opinion -- “


(1) whether the general tenor of the entire work negates the impression that the defendant was asserting an objective fact,


(2) whether the defendant used figurative or hyperbolic language that negates that impression, and


(3) whether the statement in question is susceptible of being proved true or false."


Applying those factors, the Ninth Circuit noted that Cox's posts at issue were full of hyperbole and extreme language, were posted on sites with names like obsidianfinancesucks.com that predispose readers to view them with skepticism as one-sided, contain run-on stream-of-consciousness sentences that seem more like diary entries about feelings than statements of fact, and contain bizarre flights of fancy like accusations that Padrick hired a hit man to kill Cox (a common delusional theme in Cox's writings). In short, "the district court correctly found that, in the context of a non-professional website containing consistently hyperbolic language, Cox’s blog posts are 'not sufficiently factual to be proved true or false.'" The Ninth Circuit therefore rejected Padrick's cross-appeal. The Ninth Circuit's opinion protecting Cox's free speech rights also protects your rights.


The ruling means that if someone sues you for something you write or say, your First Amendment protections will not turn on whether a judge views you as a "professional journalist." Rather, the same legal protections that have traditionally been applied to the New York Times will apply to you. That is a substantial comfort, particularly because many jurists are not familiar with things like blogs. The ruling also robustly protects your right to express how you feel, using vivid language, by maintaining that only provable statements of fact are defamatory, and hyperbole and rhetoric are not. So: the Ninth Circuit's opinion was a substantial victory for free speech. What was Cox doing whilst the Ninth Circuit was mulling it over? She was working diligently -- some would say obsessively -- to attack and undermine the free speech of others, as one would expect of a narcissistic hypocrite. Chapter Two: Crystal Cox Gets Angry Before I explain what Crystal Cox did in 2013 to undermine the free speech rights of others, I have to explain why she got angry enough to do it. In short: Crystal Cox is mad because people called out her conduct and fought back.



  • I'm Not An Extortionist, I Just Tell People I Will Stop Bad-Mouthing Them If They Pay Me Money


Crystal Cox is very angry that people call her an extortionist. Why would people say such a thing? Well, it's because of emails like this:


That's an email from Crystal Cox to the lawyer for Mr. Padrick and Obsidian Finance, after she had put up many websites accusing them of criminal offenses, offering to "protect their reputation" in exchange for $2,500 per month. Doubtless that influenced the Ninth Circuit to say this about Crystal Cox in their opinion:


Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.

One instance of interstate extortion isn't exactly a history, of course. But other people have complained of similar tactics by Cox. For instance, she sought the pro bono assistance of First Amendment badass Marc Randazza. When Randazza didn't respond quite the way she wanted, she sent him this:



In other words, after approaching him about a case in which she had been sued for creating defamatory blogs about people, she registered a URL in Randazza's name, told him she needed to make money, and asked if he knew anyone who needed a search engine reputation manager. Nor is Randazza the only one. The Montana Board of Realty Regulation recently recommended that Cox's real estate license be suspended. The Board explained that Cox became irate when a potential customer backed away from her, and sought to destroy his reputation online with confidential information he had provided to her as a potential broker:


The licensee became enraged that Cain had decided not to work with her. As a result of her anger, soon after Cain severed their business relationship, the licensee began blogging about Cain and contacting Cain through both e-mail and telephone. The licensee’s blogs exposed many of Cain’s real estate purchase plans for his company, information which the licensee had obtained through her discussions with Cain when Cain was having her line up properties in Montana.

And then -- in an echo of her accusations against others of hiring hit men -- she made him an offer:


On her February 17, 2011 blog on the www.martincain.com website, the licensee posited “Montana Man Admits to Working With Martin Cain to Set Me Up, Harm me, Kill me.” Exhibit 1, February 17, 2011 blog. Afterwards, the licensee deleted the February 17, 2011 blog and then sent an e-mail to Cain telling him that he could purchase the www.martincain.com website and domain name for $550,000.00.

Cox is incensed that people call this extortion. One of her constant refrains is that she's never been charged criminally with extortion, and therefore it's defamation, a hate crime, a criminal conspiracy, a civil rights violation, and a general abuse of her rights to offer the opinion based on these facts that she committed extortion. Of course, Cox's whole schtick is creating web sites accusing other people of a bizarre array of crimes, even though they've never been charged with any such crimes. The hypocritical contradiction is typical of an extreme narcissist.



  • I'm An Investigative Journalist, But Other Bloggers Are Just Mean


Cox is also angry because, when some news sources suggested that she might be a free-speech hero, bloggers fought back and showed her for what she is. For instance, I wrote about how Crystal Cox registered domains in the name of Marc Randazza's wife and young daughter in retaliation for Marc's dispute with her:



Many other lawbloggers -- like Jordan Rushie and Scott Greenfield and Mark Bennett and Eric Turkewtiz -- also pointed out her conduct and explained that, whatever the merits of her case, she is a villain, not a hero. Even mainstream journalists -- like David Carr at the New York Times and Kashmir Hill at Forbes -- put her First Amendment claims in the context of her deranged and extortionate behavior.


As a result, a Google search for Crystal Cox's name quickly yielded stories about her bad behavior. Crystal Cox didn't like that. in her mind, only she is allowed to write negative things to impact someone's search engine results.



  • Marc Randazza Fights Back, Kicks a*s


Marc Randazza -- who is a friend and occasional client, in addition to being a First Amendment badass -- is not one to take abuse lying down. So when Cox registered a bunch of domains in his name (like marcrandazza.com and marcjohnrandazza.com) in order to bad-mouth him and sell advertisements, he fought back. The results have been very upsetting to Cox. First, Randazza filed an action with the World Intellectual Property Organization, which resolves disputes over domain names. Marc chose wisely by proceeding narrowly -- he didn't seek to capture domains that were on their face critical or satirical, like marcrandazzasucks.com. Instead, he sought only to capture those domains that used his name in a way that caused confusion, on the theory that Cox registered those domains in bad faith to cause confusion and make ad revenue. Marc knew to narrow his claim like that because he's successfully defended satirical bloggers who use their targets' names in non-confusing and clearly satirical ways, like glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com. WIPO agreed, and awarded Marc several domain names that used his name in a confusing and non-satirical manner, and in the process noted that Cox registered the domains fraudulently to commit extortion:


In any event, for purposes of the Policy the Panel finds the Respondent’s intention, as reflected by the record, was never to solely provide, through her websites, speech critical of the Complainant. Rather, her objective in both registering and using the disputed names was apparently to engage in a rather sinister and tenacious scheme to extort money from the Complainant. Specifically, the Respondent first posted negative and false commentary on her websites that was intentionally calculated to injure the Complainant’s on-line reputation and disrupt the Complainant’s business conducted through his law firm. Thereafter, the Respondent used those sites in a manner that apparently optimized their ranking on the Google search engine in order to increase their visibility and prominence on search results yielded through a Google search of the Complainant, thus likely exacerbating the injury caused to the Complainant. Once all this occurred, the Respondent then offered her reputational management services to the Complainant through which, for a considerable fee, she would remediate the Complainant’s on-line reputation by eliminating all the negative and false commentary of her own making and presumably also ceasing her use of the disputed domain names. Basically, for a price, she would undo the injury to the Complainant for which she was responsible for having created in the first place. This egregious conduct clearly constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

But Randazza wasn't done. He sued Cox in United States District Court in the District of Nevada. In his complaint, Randazza explicitly disclaimed any intent to sue Cox for theories like defamation or infliction of emotional distress. Instead, he accused Cox of registering domains in his name in order to make money of it, in violation of his rights, and as a pattern of extortion. He noted, for instance, one of Cox's posts titled "Marc Randazza Domain Name for Sale.. Here Kitty Kitty..." Based on that, Randazza articulated causes of action under the federal cyberpiracy and cybersquatting statutes, as well as under state right to publicity statutes. The gravamen of his claim -- and what distinguishes it from most cases of satirical websites -- is that Randazza alleged that Cox acted to extort money from him or make money through selling the domains or collecting other revenue. Randazza's suit has been successful. United States District Judge Gloria Navarro first issued a temporary restraining order against Cox locking the domains to prevent their transfer, and making this finding:


In this case, Defendants have embarked on a campaign of cyber-extortion. Specifically, Cox sent an e-mail to Plaintiff Randazza that informed him that she had purchased and, in that same email, informed him of her “need to make money.” (Pls.’ Mot. for TRO, Ex. 8, ECF No. 2-10.)

Judge Navarro later issued a preliminary injunction transferring the domains to Randazza. Judge Navarro repeated her finding that Cox was engaged in extortion:


Here, Defendants’ actions leading up to the filing of the Complaint, as well as Defendants’ past behavior, as represented in Plaintiffs’ reply briefing, clearly seems to indicate cyber-extortion. (See Pls.’ Reply in Support of Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 28, Ex. 1). Specifically, Defendant Cox’s request for $5 million in exchange for and her offering of “reputation management services” indicate her intent to profit from the registration of Plaintiffs’ personal names as Domain Names. Defendant’s post hoc attempt to explain this as a “joke” is not credible. Given the fact that the Defendant has been shown to have engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting and cyber-extortion, this Court finds that she was more likely than not, attempting to sell this domain name to the plaintiff, or to solicit a price for the domain name in excess of herout of pocket expenses related to the domain name.

As you will see below, as a result of these rulings Cox repeatedly and frivolously sued Judge Navarro.



  • I'm Mad On Behalf Of My New Friend. Or Am I?


Finally, Cox professes to be outraged on behalf of a new friend. The friend is a man named Elliot Bernstein. For many years, Bernstein has been asserting that he invented technology called iViewit, and that all of the companies using streaming video have stolen and infringed his rights to that technology in a vast conspiracy. I shall refrain from characterizing Bernstein and his litigation history. Let me, instead, quote from the opinion of a United States District Judge in New York dismissing one of Bernstein's cases:


This action presents a dramatic story of intrigue, car bombing, conspiracy, video technology, and murder. In short, plaintiffs allege that hundreds of defendants engaged in a massive conspiracy to violate their civil rights and, in the process, contributed to the Enron bankruptcy and the presidency of George W. Bush. In plaintiffs' words: Plaintiffs depict a conspiratorial pattern of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, that runs so wide and so deep, that it tears at the very fabric, and becomes the litmus test, of what has come to be known as free commerce through inventors' rights and due process in this country, and in that the circumstances involve inventors' rights tears at the very fabric of the Democracy protected under the Constitution of the United States.

As that Court suggests, Bernstein suggests that the violation of his intellectual property rights are intertwined with many of the most momentous events of the last few decades. For instance:


In fact, plaintiffs suggests that the Iviewit case may have distracted Justice Labarga from his work on Bush v. Gore, leading possibly to its result.

In his various motions seeking to reverse his litigation fortunes, Bernstein brags of seeking state and federal criminal charges against a large swath of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the judges of which are apparently complicit in the conspiracy. And so on. You may, with caution, visit Bernstein's site and draw further conclusions. Cox transferred many of her domains to Bernstein, perhaps to protect them from judgment creditor claims by Padrick and Obsidian Finance, and perhaps to protect them from Randazza. She also now asserts that all of the bad things said about her are part of a conspiracy to prevent her from revealing the secrets she knows about the vast conspiracy Bernstein claims in his lawsuits. No. Really. So. Where did all of this anger lead Crystal Cox? To court. More accurately, to a whole bunch of courts.


Chapter Three: Crystal Cox Sues Everybody


In 2013, Crystal Cox embarked on a series of federal lawsuits in numerous states, all combining her grievances from the Padrick and Obsidian Finance litigation, her grievances against the journalists and bloggers who wrote unflattering things about her, her grievances against United States District Judge Gloria Navarro and the WIPO for ruling against her in Randazza's actions, some poorly expressed grievances against people who annoyed her when she lived in Montana, and the grievances of her new friend, Elliot Bernstein. I was a defendant in one of those actions, because I wrote about Cox, and therefore was classified as a conspirator. Cox sued in federal courts in Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I have collected all of her complaints, and the orders dismissing them, in the appendix to this post.[note]Yes, having a post with footnotes is already ridiculous. Yes, an appendix transcends self-parody. I AM WHAT I AM.[/note] Cox's defendant list varied a bit from suit to suit[note]I am only listing Cox's 2013 lawsuits against this group of defendants on this group of bizarre claims.


Separately, Cox also sued a strange array of defendants in federal court in Montana, accusing them of being part of a vast conspiracy back in 2006 to conceal mold in a house. That suit was dismissed by the court. Cox also sued numerous realty (that's realty, not reality, obviously) organizations based on claims of conspiracy and antitrust violations. That claim was also dismissed by the court.[/note], but generally it included Judge Gloria Navarro (for ruling against her), Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance and their lawyers, the New York Times and journalist David Carr and Forbes and journalist Kashmir Hill (for criticizing her), numerous lawbloggers who criticized her (including me) and their law firms, New York Public Radio, the World Intellectual Property Organization and several of its officials, megafirms Proskauer Rose and Greenberg Traurig (who defended against Bernstein's litigation), the Multnomah County Sheriff Office and the Sheriff and one of his deputies, the University of Montana, Warner Bros. (which, as near as I can tell, is alleged to use streaming technology stolen from Bernstein), Godaddy (for allowing courts to tell it to move domains away from her), employees of Intel and Apple (again, apparently premised on the Bernstein claims), and the Free Speech Coalition (because f**k you, apparently).


Like the defendant list, Cox's list of causes of action also varied. However, her complaints include both criminal claims (which, of course, Cox cannot lawfully bring) and civil claims, and include things like criminal and civil conspiracy, conspiracy to violate civil rights, deprivation of civil rights under color of law, "all state and federal laws applying to defamation," "ALL federal and state harassment laws applicable," "all anti-discrimination laws," the Sherman Antitrust Act, violation of the Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human rights, violation of the International Covenant on Civil Rights and Political Rights, the Hate Crimes Act, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract and prospective business advantage, racketeering and RICO, malpractice, "shield laws," witness tampering, False Claims Act, Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, "all federal and state whistle blower [sic] retaliation laws," and others. It is extremely difficult to figure out what Cox says any particular person did.


As near as I can figure, Cox -- whose avocation is accusing people of crimes on her blogs -- is arguing that it is defamation, racketeering, hate crime, and retaliation to point out that her published emails are extortionate. She also seems to be arguing that all of the defendants, somehow, are part of the vast global conspiracy against Bernstein to steal his iViewit technology, and that she is a victim because she has crucial information about the conspiracy and people are writing mean things about her in order to suppress her crucial testimony. Or something. One thing is very clear: just as clearly as she thinks the First Amendment should protect her saying terrible (and entirely bogus) things about Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance, she thinks the law should prevent other people from saying negative things about her. Again: narcissistic hypocrite. Notably, as far as I can tell, Cox never served a single defendant through lawful service.


Nobody was ever required to respond. So how did the cases get dismissed? Well, rather than pay the filing fees -- which, given the number of cases, would have been substantial -- Cox pled poverty and asked the courts to waive the filing fees. Federal courts can do that -- but the statute that allows them to do so also allows them to dismiss frivolous and abusive complaints.


The courts faced with Cox's claims have done so. Federal judges across the country have responded to Cox's claims with a mixture of bewilderment and scorn. They've called Cox's claims "fantastical and implausible."


Another said "[p]laintiff’s complaint is 153 pages in length, is not presented in numbered paragraph form, and does not clearly state what acts of what defendants are alleged to give rise to her claims." Said another, "[a]t 153 pages, Plaintiff’s Complaint is sprawling and incomprehensible. In what can only be characterized as a barrage of allegations and accusations, the Court cannot discern to which parties the individual claims are directed and on what basis the claims are brought." In Florida the District Judge discussed the bizarre nature of Cox's claims:


The current claim is clearly baseless in light of the fact that the Complaint is comprised of conclusory allegations that are oft-times fantastic or delusional, and substantiated by no facts to support the practicality of the claims. For instance, Plaintiff states that Defendant Randazza and his co-conspirators are involved in prostitution rings, client shakedowns, controlling judges, strong arming or paying off media, and extreme retaliation against those who criticize Defendant Randazza. (D.E. l-2 at p. 94). Plaintiff factually substantiates none of these claims. Plaintiff also conclusively alleges without substantiation that Defendant Judge Gloria Navarro placed Plaintiff's life in danger. Ié. at p. 25.

In Massachusetts, in an very thorough order putting Cox's claim there in the context of her nationwide campaign, the court dryly noted that her complaint is "not entirely intelligible or organized." Based on their power triggered by Cox's request to proceed without paying fees, the courts have all dismissed Cox's complaints. When they have given her leave to amend, she has either failed to do so or has filed amended complaints that are just as unintelligible as the original ones. In some cases Cox has ceased communicating with the court. Courts sending mail to the post office box she provides in her pleadings have had it returned as undeliverable, even though she continues to use that post office box in recent filings. (Refusing to acknowledge or accept undesirable court mailings is a common vexatious litigant tactic.) Similarly, Randazza notes that she's playing a similar game in his suit against her -- she's commenting online about the content of filings and court orders even as she ignores and fails to respond to them.


Cox's federal complaints have gone nowhere. That is unlikely to change. But they have represented an effort to suppress and retaliate against free speech by vexatious harassment of her critics. Being sued -- even by a deranged person -- is stressful and unsettling. Even when your speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment, like the commentary about Cox has been, it's difficult not to be chilled by frivolous lawsuits. Cox was uttering censorious demands out of one side of her mouth even as she asked the Ninth Circuit to protect her free speech out of the other side.


Conclusion


Ultimately this case shows the legal system working. A judge violated the rights of an extremely distasteful and justifiably despised litigant, and the Ninth Circuit applied the First Amendment correctly to someone who, herself, abuses it at every opportunity. A disturbed pro se litigant filed a flurry of abusive and frivolous suits, which were dismissed without any defendants even having to respond. I would feel that the system was working even better if an enterprising United States Attorney somewhere prosecuted Cox for interstate extortion, but we don't always get what we want. For now, it is satisfying to know this: Crystal Cox's appeal to the Ninth Circuit produced an important ruling that defends my rights and yours, and that ironically will make it easier to defeat her nonsensical, abusive, and censorious lawsuits if anyone is ever called upon to do so.


Appendix


District of Arizona Complaint


District of Arizona Amended Complaint


District of Arizona First Dismissal


District of Arizona Final Dismissal


Northern District of California Complaint


Northern District of California Dismissal


Southern District of Florida Complaint


Southern District of Florida Dismissal


Southern District of Florida Final Dismissal


Northern District of Illinois Complaint


Northern District of Illinois Minute Order Explaining Dismissal


Northern District of Illinois Final Judgment of Dismissal


District of Massachusetts Complaint


District of Massachusetts Dismissal Order


District of Massachusetts Final Dismissal


District of Nevada Complaint


District of Nevada Dismissal Order


District of Nevada Final Dismissal


District of New Jersey Complaint


District of New Jersey Dismissal Order


District of New Jersey Final Dismissal


Southern District of New York Complaint


Southern District of New York Order Transferring Case to Nevada[note]The court has not yet dismissed this action.[/note]


Eastern District of Pennsylvania Complaint


Eastern District of Pennsylvania Dismissal order


Eastern District of Wisconsin Complaint


Eastern District of Wisconsin Dismissal Order


NOW TO THE ORIGINAL REPORT THAT WAS FILED

=====================


 


(((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) is GUILTY of unethical practices, Fraud on the Courts, Violating my Constitutional Rights, Violating my Free Speech Rights, Denying me Due Process, using Privileged information gained acting as my attorney against me to further his own agenda and protect his clients in the Porn Industry.


 


(((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) talked down to me as a client, misrepresented me, mistreated me and attempted to make deals on my behalf with the opposition in my case without discussion the deal with me, the client prior.


 


(((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) acts outside of the law and puts his clients rights and quality of life in the back seat per say as he does as he pleases with total disregard for what is truly the best interest of his client.  


 


(((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) believes that if he takes a case for Free, then you dang well better sit down and shut up, and do what he says. Another words don't think for yourself nor question any action that he takes, that is allegedly in your best interest.


 
Attorney (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) offered to represent me for FREE on my Ninth Circuit Appeal, but really he was sabotaging my case and trying to STOP me from appealing so that he could protect the Porn Industry from the Implications of my First Amendment Case. 


 
Plus, the "for Free" turned out to be approx. $5,000, but hey a case like mine would cost $75,000 he said so $5000 is just for his plane tickets and hotels, copies and such. This after I had a huge judgement, was trying to appeal which he was trying to talk me out of and clearly I had NO MONEY. 


 

Do not trust (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) or anyone at (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))), do your homework. 


 

His rates are around $10,000 a month and he is not a very good lawyer. I tried to warn the public about (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) of (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))), and he sued me for a Trademark Violation and shut down my speech online that criticized him. With this he wanted awarded, what was round $10,000 a month for his attorney fees to pay his own law firm to sue his former client who was exposing him. 


 


The Whole (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) vs. Cox case docket is below


http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html


 


I FIRED (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) due to his verbal abuse to me, running over my rights, ignoring what I wanted in my own case and treating me badly. Months later he sued me for millions and has participated in defamation, gang stalking, SLAPP lawsuits, and a constant tired of attacks since.



Over the last 2 years I have been given a lot of tips and inside information regarding (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) and have done my best to let the courts know and try and bring (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE)))


and his law firm, (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) to justice.  I will continue to file complaints with authorities, legal cases, and attempt to protect the public from being a victim of (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) or his law firm,  (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))), as I have and am on a daily basis. 



By Posting this Report, I hope to save YOU from being a VICTIM of Attorney
(((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE)))


or his law firm,  (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))).


 

Links to further research the unethical practices and organized crime connections of (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE)))


((((REDACTED))))


This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/02/2014 11:12 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/REDACTED-BY-EDITOR-DUE-TO-ABUSE-OF-WEBSITE/Las-Vegas-Nevada/Crystal-Cox-case-in-9thnbspCircuit-Court-of-Appeals-Cox-apparently-has-a-history-of-1112488. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE)))

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
2Author 24Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

((((REDACTED)))) Defends Racism, Hate, and all in the Name of Free Speech, though He CONSTANTLY Suppresses FREE Speech of those who Speak Critical of HIM.

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

"

((((REDACTED)))) appears to think young women who men psychologically abuse using racial intimidation should shut up & take it. No wonder Michael Weinstein triumphed over ((((REDACTED)))) idiocy.

 

Alexandra Mayers aka Monica Foster commentary:

Today I simply can’t believe the load of complete CRAP Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group SOMEHOW had enough influence to have published on CNN.

Basically what ((((REDACTED)))) (the hypocritical, wannabe elitist, PORNOGRAPHIC INDUSTRY attorney who DEFENDS child pornography, is affiliated with an internationally known convicted pedophile, and is a self proclaimed “First Amendment” activist) stated…is that a “gold digger” (in other words, a young woman who an old Jewish man took a liking to and purchased nice things for in exchange for companionship), should just sit down, shut up and take PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE (in the case of Donald Sterling,  racially based intimidation).

Well, that is VERY TELLING in regards to EXACTLY who ((((REDACTED)))) is. I actually witnessed such mentality (the condoning of psychological abuse against women) more often than not while working in the Los Angeles porn industry.

Now I believe I COMPLETELY understand why ((((REDACTED)))) brought the element of RACE into the equation when I shared my thoughts about my belief of his being attached to ORGANIZED CRIME (when I initially communicated with him a couple years ago) in regards to one of my blog posts! TODAY, I think it was all BECAUSE ((((REDACTED))))IS MOST LIKELY A CLOSET RACIST in addition to being a MALE CHAUVINIST PIG!

I never thought ((((REDACTED)))) was attached to organized crime due to his ethnic background – I thought what I did BECAUSE OF HIS HISTORY AND ACTIVITY!

Christianity is

(click to enlarge)

Let me tell you a little something about ((((REDACTED)))) – as you my readers are aware, his lawfirm ((((REDACTED)))) is currently SUING ME for in excess of $50,000 for 4 tweets and a piece of PARODY ARTISTIC EXPRESSION in effort to drive me into either the Nevada legal brothels, the dangerous Las Vegas strip clubs or back into the porn industry.  That’s right –((((REDACTED)))) is attempting to SEX TRAFFIC me!

I have not posted my Civil Suit court response online just yet, but there are quite a few people in positions of power who have read it and who have viewed my evidence in regards to ((((REDACTED)))) apparent attachment to pornographic industry sextraficking and organized crime.

Monica Foster helped Marc Randazza regain his wife's domain name and DECLINED payment.

Monica Foster helped ((((REDACTED)))) regain his wife’s domain name and DECLINED payment.

((((REDACTED)))) seems to have the MENTALITY that women who find themselves involved with older men for companionship whether it be as a girlfriend, wife, mistress or prostitute should just SIT DOWN, SHUT UP and TAKE WHATEVER ABUSE is dished out to them. ((((REDACTED)))) DEFENSE of Donald Sterling today essentially states JUST THAT – because Donald didn’t just psychologically abuse V. Staviano (his mistress) – Donald Sterling psychologically ABUSED HIS OWN WIFE FOR YEARS (as anyone with half a brain can CLEARLY assess)!

I believe God works through Jesus Christ in due time (and in mysterious ways), so I’m trying my best to remain calm. HOWEVER, I ask you – my readers – WHY IS M((((REDACTED)))) EVEN GIVEN A PLATFORM on CNN? 

As of April 29, 2014 – Michael Weinstein (a man I ADORE who I feel is an ANGEL OF LIGHT SENT DIRECTLY FROM HEAVEN TO PROTECT COUNTLESS OF INDIVIDUALS IN OUR SOCIETY THROUGH HIS SELFLESS WORK WITH THE AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION – along with California Assemblymen Isadore Hall III), triumphed over ((((REDACTED)))) and the political face of the Los Angeles pornographic industry by pushing through a ballot measure (AB 1576) which is set to insure the health and safety of countless people within the adult entertainment industry.

I find it VERY TELLING that though the Free Speech Coalition (which is the political face for the porn industry) had ((((REDACTED))))SPEAK FOR THEM, he FAILED to present himself as an ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ATTORNEY on his CNN piece today.

Since ((((REDACTED)))) feels compelled to defend Donald Sterling – LIKE DONALD STERLING, I feel ((((REDACTED)))) should be BANNED from the NBA, all attached social circles and all of SOCIETY of which CONDONES such a DISGUSTING PRE CIVIL WAR ERA MENTALITY!

Neither African-American’s, WOMEN or ANYONE for that matter (who may have less MONEY than ANYONE ELSE) are any LESS VALUABLE  than ANYONE ELSE ON THIS PLANET! It’s ABOUT THE SPIRITUAL VALUE OF THE SOUL!

In the article below, you can read what Rob Black (and many in the porn industry) think of ((((REDACTED)))) (via AdultFYI.com)"

 

Source, First Amendment Talk, Monica Foster

firstamendmenttalk.com/?p=366

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

District Court State of Nevada, County of Clark Eighth Judicial District A-14-69 8267- C

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

More on the WORLDS most Hypocritical Attorney ((((REDACTED))))

((((REDACTED)))) has engaged in a campaign to "scrub" consumer review sites against him. I, Crystal Cox was harmed by ((((REDACTED)))), he acted as my attorney. I have every right to review him, yet he removed massive online sites of mine, sued me for millions, sued one of my sources of corruption, and has engaged in massive harassment and legal actions in multiple courts to scrub the internet of sites reviewing him, yet files this motion in exact opposite of his own hypocritical actions.

((((REDACTED)))) has violated the rights of Blogger Crystal Cox and yet presents the opposited case in District Court State of Nevada, County of Clark Eighth Judicial District A-14-69 8267- C.

District Court State of Nevada, County of Clark Eighth Judicial District A-14-69 8267- C

((((REDACTED)))) has engaged in a campaign to "scrub" consumer review sites of any negative reviews by filing a SLAPP baseless lawsuit against Crystal Cox.

((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) filed ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox and ((((REDACTED)))) v. Godaddy to suppress my free speech, harass my sources, remove negative online content about him and his law firm in the hopes of intimidating me, Crystal Cox and my sources Eliot Bernstein, Diana Grandmason and Alexandria Mayers (Monica Foster).

All in this harassing case above is exactly what ((((REDACTED)))) and ((((REDACTED)))) has done to blogger Crystal Cox.

Crystal Cox moves to dismiss based on SLAPP and is Denied, ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) moves to dismiss, claims SLAPP and prevails and now sues for legal fees, WOW.

Source

crystalcox.com/2014/03/district-court-state-of-nevada-county.html

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

More CENSORSHIP from ((((REDACTED)))) and ((((REDACTED))))

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

((((REDACTED)))) DOES not want you to know about what ((((REDACTED)))) used to look like. That was not Crystal Cox's site but another person that ((((REDACTED)))) First Amendment HYPOCRITE Censored. 

((((REDACTED)))) is a HYPOCRITE indeed, as he pretends to support free speech and more speech, yet violates the rights of others constantly. 

((((REDACTED)))) has my copyrighted material on his blog, but he is ABOVE THE LAW. 

STAND UP TO THE LAWLESS, ROGUE attorney ((((REDACTED)))) .

More on what was on that site, Click Below

http://www.crystalcox.com/2014/03/more-radical-overreaching-chilling.html

 

"DMCA Notice Received by Docstoc

Dear Crystal L. Cox (5497763, savvybroker@yahoo.com),

We have received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) copyright infringement notice and take down request regarding the following document(s), which we have removed or disabled access to:

((((REDACTED)))) - Where is this ((((REDACTED)))) Site : ((((REDACTED))))

You may file a counter-notification pursuant to 11 USC Sec. 512(g), if doing so is truthful. To expedite our ability to process your counter notification, please use the following format (including paragraph numbers), in legible type at least in 12 point font or the equivalent:

  1. Identify the specific URLs or other unique identifying information of material that Docstoc has removed or to which Docstoc has disabled access.
  2. Provide your name, address, telephone number, email address, and a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which your address is located (or Los Angeles County, California if your address is outside of the United States), and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
  3. Include the following statement: "I swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that each of those works were removed in error and I believe my posting them does not infringe anyone else's copyrights. I understand that I am declaring the above under penalty of perjury, meaning that if I am not telling the truth I may be committing a crime.”
  4. Sign the paper.
  5. Send the written communication to the following address:
    Docstoc, Inc.
    Attn: Docstoc Legal Support, DMCA Counter Notification
    409 Santa Monica Blvd
    Suite 2A
    Santa Monica, CA 90401
    OR fax to: 310-255-1176
    Or email as an imaged document (e.g., pdf, or Tiff) to Copyright@docstoc.com with the subject line stating "DMCA Counter Notification for
  6. ((((REDACTED)))) - Where is this ((((REDACTED))))
    "

You may also generate this counter-notification by using a tool at http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf and then sending that to us.

 

Thank you for being a Docstoc User.

Sincerely,
The Docstoc Team"

Respond to this report!
What's this?

"

To: 

Kimberly Farmer, Executive Director - State Bar of Nevada, Attorney General Eric Holder, United States Department of Justice, Investigate pornography attorney ((((REDACTED))))of ((((REDACTED)))) and his affiliation with the Libertarian Party of Nevada & Convicted Pedophile August Kurt Brackob aka Kurt Treptow. 

As of January of 2014, a California Judge ruled that pornographic performers in California should be treated as employees and covered by workplace laws requiring condoms (which are enforced by Cal OSHA). 

Condom mandates and legistlation in California (ie: California Assemblyman Isadore Hall III's proposed bill AB 1576) will protect the health, safety and lives of adult film workers AND the general public (considering that a high percentage of adult film workers regularly expose the general public to STDs and STIs via working as illegal prostitutes and escorts). 

Pornography attorney ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED))))has actively encouraged California porn industry professionals to WILLFULLY VIOLATE Cal OSHA enforced workplace safety laws by suggesting the Los Angeles porn industry relocate to Las Vegas, Nevada where it is ILLEGAL to produce pornography AND work as a prostitute. 

As of November of 2013, Alexandra Mayers aka Monica Foster uncovered the fact that the political face of the Los Angeles porn industry (the Free Speech Coalition) and ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED))))have an affiliation with internationally known and convicted pedophile August Kurt Brackob aka Kurt Treptow (who for a brief time, held the position of Treasurer within the LIbertarian Party of Nevada). 

View this link for details. http://pornnewstoday.com/pnt/?p=7341 

August Kurt Brackob aka Kurt Treptow, it appears, was assisting Diane Duke, CEO of the Free Speech Coalition & ((((REDACTED)))) in overturning the 2257 record keeping laws, and in paving the way via contacts in the Libertarian Party of Nevada for the Los Angeles porn industry to relocate to Las Vegas. 

2257 records as of current are being utilized to protect minors from being exploited in adult content and enforce workplace safety laws within the United States pornographic industry. As of recent Cal OSHA utilized 2257 forms to fine adult / pornographic studios who were found to have broken workplace safety laws by not utilizing condoms in their productions. "
 
Source
((((REDACTED))))
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Consumer Comment

Crystal Cox Granted Counter Complaint Filing Against ((((REDACTED))))

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

Nevada Judge Grants Crystal Cox's Motion to Reconsider Crystal Cox filing a Counter Complaint against ((((REDACTED)))). 

"ORDER Granting in part and denying in part [116] Defendant Crystal Cox's Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant shall be permitted to file a proper counterclaim against Plaintiff ((((REDACTED)))) The motion is DENIED in all other respects. Defendant Cox must file any proper counterclaim no later than 2/28/14. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 2/14/14."

Here is part of Document 116 that was Granted

"Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox moves this court to be fair and equal in applying law and rules of procedure to Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox. Plaintiff Cox requests that she NOT be, simply dismissed due to being a Pro Se Litigant, and that she be treated fairly under the laws and constitution of the United States of America. Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox has a legal, lawful, due process Constitutional Right to counterclaim the cause of action claims made against her by Counter Defendant Marc J. Randazza"

"Plaintiff / Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has made false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox. Cox has a right to relief.

Plaintiff / Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has made false statements that have subjected
Counter Plaintiff Cox to “hatred, contempt, ridicule and have diminished the esteem, respect,
goodwill and confidence in which Counter Plaintiff Cox was held prior. Plaintiff / Counter
Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has made false statements concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox that has directly caused adverse, derogatory, unpleasant feelings, and opinions of Counter Plaintiff Cox
internationally.


Plaintiff / Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has breached attorney client privilege and sued his own ex-client over related matters. Cox has a right to relief.


Plaintiff / Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has caused Counter Plaintiff Cox irreparable,
immeasurable harm and Cox has a lawful and constitutional right to relief.


RULE 13. COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSSCLAIM


Upon knowledge and belief, Under RULE 13. COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSSCLAIM, Counter
Plaintiff Cox has a right to a counterclaim against her accuser.
If this court deemed that Cox had not properly filed this motion, then it is this court’s duty to
instruct Cox on what is expected of her and to not simply be dismissed because she is a pro se litigant. ( "Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings." Plaskey v CIA, 953 F .2nd 25.,"

For Full Document, Click Below crystalcox.com/2014/02/crystal-cox-motion-granted-to-file.html

 

Feb. 19th 2014, Cox Filed a NEW Counter Claim in ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox Per Order Docketed Above as Document Number 162 in ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox, Nevada. 

Here is the Counter Claim 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL

CRYSTAL L. COX,

Defendant, Counter Plaintiff

 

v.

 

((((REDACTED)))), Individually and Professionally

Plaintiffs, Counter Defendant

 

((((REDACTED)))), Counter Defendant

                                                           

 

Counter Complaint

Demand for Jury Trial

Cause of Action

1.) Defamation

 

2.) Harassment

 

3.) Abuse of Process

 

4.) Malpractice

 

5.) Tortious Interference / Interference with Business Advantage

 

6.) Civil Conspiracy

 

7.) Violation of First Amendment Rights






Counter Plaintiff appears in this action "In Propria Persona" and asks that her points and authorities relied upon herein, and issues raised herein, must be addressed "on the merits", Sanders v United States, 373 US 1, at 16, 17 (1963); and addressed with "clarity and particularity", McCleskey v Zant, 111 S. Ct. 1454, at 1470-71 (1991); and afforded " a full and fair" evidentiary hearing, Townsend v Sain, 372 U.S.293, at p.1 (1962). See also Pickering v Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 151 F.2d 240 (3d Cir. 1945).

 

Pleadings of the Counter Plaintiff shall not be dismissed for lack of form or failure of process. All the pleadings are as any reasonable man/woman would understand, and are written to the best of Counter Plaintiff’s ability and knowledge.

 

For complaint against Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))), and Counter Defendant Randazza Legal Group, Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox Alleges as Follows, Under Knowledge and Belief;

 

I. INTRODUCTION

 

1.)  On Nov. 29th, 2011 Cox had a one day trial in Portland OR for Obsidian V. Cox (CV 11-0057 HA). Cox was ruled to have no First Amendment Rights, ruled that the Shield Law, Retraction Laws and Anti-Slapp laws did not apply to Cox, the court ruled that this was due to her being a blogger and not a “journalist” associated with an established media network.  Cox lost at Trial, and Plaintiff was awarded a $2.5 million judgement against Cox.

 

2.)   On Dec. 6th 2011, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh called Cox and asked if Cox was open to him representing her Pro Bono (no fee’s at all), Cox said she was. Professor Volokh had to get approval from Mayer Brown in order to finalize a contract with Cox. Therefore it was not a 100% yet. Cox remained open to counsel and was, at that time researching Pro Se representation on her Ninth Circuit appeal.

 

3.)   On Dec. 10th, 2011 one of Cox’s anti-corruption bloggers on her blog network, Michael Spreadbury, contacted Cox and said that he had been in contact with an attorney named Marc Randazza. Spreadbury asked Cox if she was open to a conference call with ((((REDACTED)))), to discuss his possible Pro Bono representation of Cox in her Ninth Circuit Appeal. This was the first time Cox had ever heard of ((((REDACTED)))) in any way.

 

Out of respect for Spreadbury, Cox took the phone meeting. On this call ((((REDACTED)))) discussed Cox’s case, her strategy, the emails alleging Cox being an extortionist, her MT real estate license, and discussed whether Cox appealing was a good idea. Randazza told Cox that Pro Bono would cost her a min. of $5000 for his various fees.

 

((((REDACTED)))) told Cox that it may not be best for others if she appealed Obsidian v. Cox. Cox told Randazza that she wanted to do what was best for all but that she really wanted to appeal the verdict as she felt this was in the best interest of all anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistleblowers. On this First Call ((((REDACTED)))) asked Cox to email him all of the files on the case, and all related documents of which Cox did. ((((REDACTED)))) did not commit to representation and knew that time was of the essence. ((((REDACTED)))) claimed he may have a conflict of interest with the Media Bloggers Association, and had to review the record to make sure that Cox had preserved the right legal arguments for appeal.

 

Also on this first Call, ((((REDACTED)))) told Cox that those higher up in the Porn Industry had contacted him and asked him what he was going to do about the Crystal Cox Case? As Cox’s First Amendment verdict affected the Porn Industry.



4.)  On December 15th 2011, Volokh contacted Cox via eMail stating that he had heard through channels, that ((((REDACTED)))) was Cox’s attorney, and he wanted to confirm this with Cox herself.

 

Cox told Volokh that ((((REDACTED)))) had not confirmed to be Cox’s attorney, and Cox had not signed an agreement with ((((REDACTED)))). Cox and Volokh then had a phone conversation regarding the representation issue. Volokh told Cox that attorneys of the First Amendment bar had told him that ((((REDACTED)))) represented Cox. And that he, Volokh, had called ((((REDACTED)))) to discuss / confirm this representation, as he thought he was still in the running to represent Cox, and he offered ((((REDACTED)))) any support he could on this massively important constitutional rights issue. ((((REDACTED)))) told Volokh that he was, indeed, representing Cox. And that he had put in effort, time and material into this representation. And was in fact working on negotiations with the Opposition ( David Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Obsidian Finance Group).

 

After Volokh got off the phone with ((((REDACTED)))) he contacted Cox to confirm what had happened and that Randazza represented Cox and offered any support he could be in the case.

 

Cox was upset, and rightly so, as not only had Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) had been negotiating with Plaintiff (Obsidian) on a “deal” of which Counter Plaintiff Cox had never been told the details of, but he had no contract with Cox, had not committed to representation, and was recklessly, negligently interfering with the case against the wishes of what he knew Cox, the client, wanted. ((((REDACTED)))) was negotiating a way in which Cox would not get to appeal, letting the clock run out on Cox’s deadline to appeal, and chasing away other First Amendment Bar attorneys, all not in the best interest of the client nor what the client (Cox) wanted, as Randazza fully knew per the prior phone conference.

 

((((REDACTED)))) harmed Cox, acted unethically and violated the rights of Cox, acting as her attorney.

((((REDACTED)))) call lying to Volokh almost lost Cox the attorney she wanted, and the appeal that was in the best interest of Cox and bloggers like her, as well as in the best interest of society as a whole.

 

After ((((REDACTED)))) and Volokh got off the phone. ((((REDACTED)))) emailed Cox and said that he thought it over and would represent Cox. ((((REDACTED)))) had already been acting as Cox’s attorney and negotiating against the best interest of Cox and what Cox wanted in her own case.

 

Cox, then knowing what ((((REDACTED)))) had done to harm her, told ((((REDACTED))))resent Cox on any further matters, and had no authority to act on her behalf. Cox included Volokh in these emails.

 

((((REDACTED)))) emailed Cox and claimed he had no issue, and said to let him know if he could help. He spoke in high regard of Cox and what she does online and all seemed well.

 

As seen in the media surrounding Cox’s Ninth Ruling there is no case such as Obsidian v. Cox. This case is the first of it’s kind in new media and ((((REDACTED)))) really wanted to represent Cox and the media attention that went with it. There was no precedent that gave equal rights to all bloggers as to those of traditional journalist of institutional press such as the New York Times and Forbes. This is a groundbreaking case and ((((REDACTED)))) was angry that he did not “get to” represent Cox, however he acted as if he was fine and spoke highly of Cox’s online skills.

 

5.)   January 16th, 2012, Cox emailed((((REDACTED)))) to ask if he knows anyone that would hire her for marketing as she needed to make money. All Cox was doing was asking ((((REDACTED)))) if he knew anyone that needed marketing, as he had previously praised her skills.

 

Cox told((((REDACTED)))) that she had purchased MarcRandazza.com when she thought he might represent her as she does PR for her own case and planned to promote the case on it, but that now that he would not be her attorney it could be used to market him if he was open to this. Cox had not written a word on a blog, nor used that domain name.

 

Cox, as a standard of practice, has, for over 10 years purchased domain names that have the keywords in them of the stories she is writing on or promoting, having learned this in massive study and application  of internet marketing and search engine optimization. The domain name was not purchased to extort ((((REDACTED)))), nor anyone else. The domain name was not bought to intimate Randazza or anyone else. Cox never made any money from the name nor used the domain name commercially in any way.

 

Cox would have gave ((((REDACTED)))) the name, after he was not going to be a part of her case, had he not been so threatening, so over the top aggressive. This aggression,  on top of what he done to attempt to sabotage Cox’s appeal, Cox decided to then use the domain name to review, parody, speak critical of and expose the unethical, aggressive actions of Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group in effort to warn the public at large.

 

((((REDACTED)))) demanded Cox turn over the domain, he threatened Cox in making an enemy of him, and he went into a rage. Cox then decided to buy more domain names, and start more blogs speaking critical of and reporting on ((((REDACTED)))).

After this Cox began to get tips from Porn Industry insiders, of which Cox also posted.

 

6.)   Approx. March 1, 2012, Cox was contacted by Porn Insider, Investigative Blogger Monica Foster aKa Alexandria Mayer (hereafter Foster). Foster was supportive of Cox’s reporting on the Porn industry and told Cox of her blogs. From this point on Cox reposted information from Foster’s blogs as well, in effort to support victims of organized crime in the porn industry, human trafficking and those seriously abused in the porn industry. Also around this time Cox was introduced to Desi Foxx aKa Diana Grandmason, a certified human traffic victim of the porn industry. Both had stalkers, threats and harassment from those at and connected to ((((REDACTED)))). Foxx is also a Porn Industry insider, investigative blogger reporting on ((((REDACTED)))) and porn industry connections to organized crime.



7.)    On March 7th, 2012, Randazza became so enraged at not representing Cox and Cox speaking critical of him that he contacted Obsidian ( the Opposition) and agreed to conspire with them to convince Judge Hernandez and the world that Cox was guilty of Extortion. Though no criminal complaint, no trial, no cause of action, no investigation and certainly no conviction had ever been given to Cox for the Felony crime of extortion, or any crime.

 

Randazza had contacted Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Opposition in Cox’s case and offered to give testimony that would set Cox up for Extortion. Cox representing herself got a copy of a Subpoena given to ((((REDACTED)))) for a deposition. ((((REDACTED)))) never attended this deposition and later claimed that Cox had purchased domain names and intimidated him as a “witness”.

 

((((REDACTED)))) violated attorney client privilege and sought extreme revenge, retaliation against Cox whom he had prev. acted as her attorney with these same parties.

 

After this Judge Hernandez, convinced Cox was guilty of extortion, without an investigation into any evidence, nor due process in the criminal justice system, only the word of 2 attorneys David Aman (Obsidian’s Attorney) and ((((REDACTED)))) (Cox’s former attorney), Judge Hernandez denied Cox a new trial and even referred to Cox’s extortion activities as if they were proven fact in a court of law which they were not. Extortion was simply an allegation from David Aman, Attorney and Marc Randazza attorney and had no factual evidence, no court process, no investigation and no due process of law of any kind within the criminal justice system.

 

After this, the New York Times article went into detail of how Cox was guilty of extortion. Big and small media world wide picked up the story as well. And Randazza continued to post and spread false and defamatory statements against Counter Plaintiff Cox, with actual malice as he had personal and professional knowledge of the facts.  

 

8.)  On or around March 12th, 2012, Cox purchased ((((REDACTED)))), as Cox had seen a blog post on ((((REDACTED)))) blog with a liquor drink and the words “where babies come from” under it, the post talked of knocking up Jennifer on a Drunken Tryst. ((((REDACTED)))), a self professed expert in domain names did not own the name and at that time Randazza was on Fox News and CNN sticking up for Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a s**t. Cox used the domain name along with others to expose Randazza for being hypocritical, and to make fun of ((((REDACTED)))) and his wife.

 

Cox bought the domain name of their daughter to poke fun at ((((REDACTED)))), and prove that he was not what he claimed to be as a domain name expert attorney.  Cox never had a blog nor posted anything on the domain name, though it is legal to do so and Cox’s free speech right. Cox simply bought the domain name to stand up to, and poke fun at ((((REDACTED)))).

 

Cox purchase ((((REDACTED)))) to further poke fun at the, over the top anger,((((REDACTED))))was displaying even though he defends the rights of others to speack critical, call names, parod, poke fun and even defended the owner of GlenBeckRapedandMurderedAyoungGirlin1990.com.

 

Currently ((((REDACTED)))) is defending Kate Gosselin’’s right to privacy in emails and personal records while at the same time publicly humiliated, defaming, and ruining the life of Counter Plaintiff Cox with her private emails and using false subpoenas to get Cox’s private information.

 

Cox never offered to sell ((((REDACTED))))a domain name, nor remove any content for a fee of any kind. ((((REDACTED)))) claiming this to media, perjuring court documents stating Cox extorting him and stating in worldwide publications that Cox is an Extortionist has ruined Cox’s life, put Cox under massive constant duress, lost Cox clients, income and the ability to even rent a home. Cox currently lives in church housing.

 

Counter Plaintiff Cox simply stood up to ((((REDACTED)))) and he has used his power and influence over the media, law bloggers and the courts to paint Cox out as evil, a criminal, a liar, someone who attacks a 3 year old and continues to lie and torment Cox to this day.

 

9. )  Approx. March 30th, 2012, Counter Plaintiff ((((REDACTED)))) began publishing false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox, attacking a 3 year old online and being guilty of extortion. Kashmir Hill of Forbes then interviewed, spoke with Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) and published these same  false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox.



10.)  On April 2nd 2012, Kashmir Hill, Forbes began publishing false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox, attacking a 3 year old, via the false and defamatory statements of Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))). Counter Plaintiff Cox had no blog about a 3 year old, made no statements online about this three year old, yet Kashmir Hill knowingly posted false and defamatory information regarding Cox.

 

 

Jordan Rushie, Mulvihill and Rushie LLC published false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Cox, in an article on Philly Law Blow, by Jordan Rushie, Titled " The Evolution of Crystal Cox: Anatomy of a Scammer", dated, April 3rd 2012. Jordan Rushie posted false and defamatory statements regarding Cox being guilty of extortion and attacking a three year old.

 

On April 6th 2012,  Bob Garfield, NPR interviewed Counter Defendant Marc Randazza on New York Public Radio. The show was called “COMBATING "BAD" SPEECH WITH MORE SPEECH”, Dated, April 06, 2012. Bob Garfield and Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED))))stated false and defamatory, slanderous statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox.

 

Bob Garfield and Defendant ((((REDACTED)))), with actual malice and knowledge of the facts, accused Counter Plaintiff Cox of attacking a child online, of being guilty of extortion, and all manner of unethical and criminal activity. These  false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox in this world wide medium of communication has caused Cox immeasurable, irreparable damage, and essential set Cox’s life to ruin.

 

PopeHat Article April 6th, 2012. Randazza gets all his lawyer friends, to gang up on Cox and paint her in false light. Which continues to the day.

 

11.)   4-14-2012 ((((REDACTED)))) files Protective Order Against Cox in Las Vegas Courts.

 

12.)   Mid April 2012, Cox gave ((((REDACTED))))((((REDACTED)))) and((((REDACTED)))) to porn industry insider investigative blogger Monica Foster to further her efforts in protecting children, helping human trafficking victims, giving voice to those connected to ((((REDACTED)))) that were being threatened stalked and harassed, and to report on organized crime in the porn industry.

 

After this ((((REDACTED)))), tried to set Foster up for Extortion((((REDACTED)))) pressured her, bullied her. ((((REDACTED)))), through connections inside of Godaddy, stole JenniferRandazza.com out of Fosters account.((((REDACTED))))posted extreme hate online against Foster, her Christian belief, and wished her death. He also dove into personal information, got the name and make of her car and posted this in threats. Thereafter, Foster was in fear of her life and told Cox she needed to get rid of the domain names left. Cox took the names back, Cox immediately deleted ((((REDACTED))))and began posting on ((((REDACTED))))

 

13.)  4-27-2012 - ((((REDACTED))))works with Tonkon Torp to help them attempt to seize domain names, ((((REDACTED)))) recommends receiver Lara Pearson, as he had previously used her in the Righthaven case.  ((((REDACTED)))) advised attorney David Aman to use Lara Pearson as a receiver to come for Cox’s assets’ as ((((REDACTED)))) had worked with her before in the Righthaven case

 

14.)  On Jun 18th 2012, Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) filed a Czech court complaint against Cox and Eliot Bernstein, to initiate a domain name dispute. In this case, Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) stated false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Cox and Eliot Bernstein.  ((((REDACTED)))) used Kashmir Hill of Forbes, Lawyer Jordan Rushie and New York Tiems David Carr’s false and defamatory statements as his evidence to steal the intellectual property of Plaintiff Cox.

 

15.)  On July 27th 2012, Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) filed a WIPO complaint against Plaintiff Cox and Eliot Bernstein, to initiate a domain name dispute, and with no filing fee. In this case, Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED))))stated false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Cox and Bernstein and accused them both of the felony crime of extortion, without filing criminal charges, simply uses his power and influence as an attorney to state the allegations as fact.  

 

Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) used Kashmir Hill, Jordan Rushie and David Carr’s false and defamatory statements as his evidence to steal the intellectual property of Cox and Bernstein, and with no First Amendment Adjudication.

 

16. )  On November, 28, 2012  Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) filed a legal action, a vengeful, defamatory SLAPP suit,  against Counter Plaintiff Cox in the District of Nevada.  In this legal action ((((REDACTED)))), Cox’s former attorney, stated that Plaintiff Cox had extorted him and gave the false and defamatory statements of Defendants as his evidence.

 

((((REDACTED)))) did not file criminal charges with the “authorities. Nor did Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED))))file charges with the attorney general or any other body of authority, regarding his allegations that Cox and Bernstein had extorted him, was guilty of extortion or had been in a prior case where Cox was found guilty of extortion, or even under investigation for extortion.  

 

((((REDACTED)))) lied to the District of Nevada stating that he had a Trademark at that time, which he did not. ((((REDACTED)))) used a TRO to take massive amounts of intellectual property and shut down speech with no first amendment adjudication or due process.

 

The domain names in the suit were seized and given to ((((REDACTED)))), which is not standard of practice, usually domains in a case such as this are frozen in the account they are in, until the dispute is over. ((((REDACTED)))) used Cox’s proprietary search engine skills against her own reputation and business by redirecting Cox’s intellectual property to a blog post on his law blog that posted false and defamatory statements against Cox.

 

This has caused Cox irreparable harm, suffering, and loss of business, family, friends, and quality of life for 16 months and counting.



17.)  On Nov. 30th 2011, Attorney, INTA colleague of Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))); Peter L. Michaelson, Sole WIPO Panelist, published false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox and Eliot Bernstein in a WIPO publication, which has a widespread, international reader base.

 

Peter L. Michaelson quoted New York Time’s David Carr’s defamatory and false statements made to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox and used Carr and Hill’s false and defamatory statement as evidence against Cox in seizing domain names belonging to Cox and to Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Inventor.

 

Peter L. Michaelson took the stated word of Counter Defendant((((REDACTED)))) with no adjudication for the crime of extortion or due process and published these false and defamatory statements to a third party.

 

After Peter L. Michaelson’s false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox and Eliot Bernstein were published in an International WIPO publication,  Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) via his attorney Ronald D. Green of ((((REDACTED))))used these false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Cox and Bernstein to further harm, harass, defame and retaliate against Counter Plaintiff Cox and Bernstein.

 

((((REDACTED)))) used the WIPO decision as evidence in his District of Nevada case against Cox and Bernstein that they were guilty of extortion, when in fact ((((REDACTED)))) has stated those words to WIPO and they were taken falsely as facts, or evidence of law.

 

This WIPO publication then became official evidence and alleged proof in Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) case against Plaintiff Cox and Eliot Bernstein (District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL).

 

Judge Gloria Navarro used the “evidence”, “legal commentary” and slough of false and defamatory statements from ((((REDACTED)))), as justification to give massive domain names and intellectual property to ((((REDACTED)))) in a preliminary injunction. This wiped out thousands of links, wiped out the search engine ranking of Plaintiff Cox, deleted massive amounts of content that Cox had created online, and damaged Cox’s intellectual property, business, reputation and online media. As well as used Cox’s hard work for ((((REDACTED)))) to commercial gain, get new clients, keep clients and steal Cox’s traffic and direct to his commercial business, his law firm.

 

This action also removed blogs that reported on organized crime in the porn industry, blogs speaking critical of ((((REDACTED)))) and the porn industry and blogs exposing the porn industry’s unlicensed use of Eliot Bernstein’s video coding technology, iViewit.

 

The preliminary injunction and redirecting Cox’s blogs to ((((REDACTED)))) caused a  backlash of defamation, harassment, retaliation and loss of reputation, clients, friends and family, and caused serious, irreparable harm to Counter Plaintiff Cox.

 

18.)  November 30-2012 ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox WIPO Arbitration Decision Post on ((((REDACTED)))) Blog, Attacking Cox and accusing Cox of Extortion, yet again.

 

19.)  December 2012, Upon knowledge and belief, ((((REDACTED)))) advised Tonkon Torp Lawyer David Aman, counsel for Obsidian Finance Group on how to STOP Cox from appealing to the Ninth Circuit. Cox had no counsel in the area of her assets, and the execution of her 2.5 Million dollar judgement. Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) and attorney David Aman conspired to file documents with the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office (Portland, OR) to seize and auction off Cox’s right to appeal Obsidian v. Cox.

The documents stated that Cox’s right to appeal her Ninth Circuit case would be SOLD to the highest bidder to pay off her $2.5 Million Dollar Judgement owed to Obsidian. Cox’s appeal was already well under way. Cox contacted her appeal attorney Eugene Volokh and he got approval to represent Cox on the matter. (As seen in document numbers 144 and 145 of Obsidian v. Cox, Dist. of Oregon)

 

20.)   All of 2013, ((((REDACTED))))filed motions in courts harassing Cox, participated in hate and defamation campaigns, interviewed in big and small media and stated false and defamatory information, threatened and intimidated Cox, harassed Cox’s sources inside the porn industry, emailed many individuals and business attempting to get others to accuse Cox of extortion and join his hate and defamation campaign against Cox.

 

Cox received threatening texts, online hate, taunting, and constant duress for those connected to ((((REDACTED)))).

 

21.)  On January 27th 2014, ((((REDACTED)))) issued a subpoena to Godaddy, the Notice of Subpoena was District of Nevada, and signed by “Law Clerk” at RLG, signature cannot be made out, and no printed name. The actual subpoena to Godaddy said “District of Arizona” on the documents, and stated that a C. DeRose at 5131 N. 40th St, A310, Phoenix AZ would examine all financial data, electronically stored information, billing data, IP data, server data, all phone numbers, and contact of anyone associated with accounts or to the specified people that ((((REDACTED)))) wanted personal, financial and intellectual property information on; to be examined on Feb. 7th, 2014. The Exhibit to this subpoena was a District of Nevada document stating further persona, private, and financial data that RLG was commanding that Godaddy turn over to them in regard to Crystal Cox.

 

This Subpoena gave RLG access to the private and financial information of porn industry insiders, whistleblowers such as Monica Foster and Diana Grandmason, both exposing RLG and their connections to Organized Crime in the Porn Industry, prostitution forced on porn actors, pedophiles connected to RLG and the activities of the Free Speech Coalition and RLG to move the porn industry to Las Vegas.

 

This Subpoena also gave RLG access to the private data and financial information of iViewit inventor Eliot Bernstein, of which is an inventor Cox has been reporting on for over 4 years.

 

Over a Decade ago iViewit Technology invented a video coding technology that changed
pixelated video to clear crisp video. Counter defendant Randazza’s clients make billions a year off of this technology, in which they infringe on.

 

22.)  On January 27th 2014, ((((REDACTED)))) issued a District of Nevada subpoena to Verizon Wireless, the actual Subpoena is District of Northern Texas, this subpoena commands Verizon, though Klemchuk Kubasta LLP 8150 N. Central Expressway, 10th Floor Dallas, TX to be allowed to inspect documents requested on February 10th, 2014.

 

The Exhibit to the subpoena, a District of Nevada document COMMANDING that Verizon give Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))), Cox’s personal private information, phone numbers, personal calls, business calls, billing and payment information, data that breaches the privacy of countless individuals and companies, lawyers, media, clients, customer, and friends of Cox.

 

This subpoena also gave ((((REDACTED))))access to phone numbers and data of sources whom had told Cox of issues of organized crime, prostitution and more in which Cox was reporting on connected to RLG, the Free Speech Coalition and the Organized Crime in Porn. Including delicate and private information, texts, phone numbers, contacts of those who have been threatened by RLG and connections. The Subpoena also requested all other numbers on the account thereby unjustly data mining Cox’s family, friend, business partners, and personal relationships.

 

The Subpoena also allowed RLG to access who may help Cox pay her bills, or help her to have a phone. As Cox has no money, no home and is penniless due to the relentless actions of Cox. This compromises the private information of those helping Cox to have a lifeline, a phone. This could also give RLG access to where Cox is located at all times and as Counter Plaintiff Cox has stated many times in this case, Cox’s life is in danger, under constant duress and threats by those in the porn industry connected to ((((REDACTED)))) and this is potentially life or death to Cox and her sources.

 

Cox claims ((((REDACTED)))) issued a false instrument, impersonated a Subpoena and has caused Cox and those connected to her irreparable harm.

 

23.)  On Feb. 2, 2014 Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) filed an Amicus Brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals to attempt to convince the Ninth Circuit panel in a civil trial defamation case, (Obsidian v. Cox) that Counter Plaintiff Cox is a criminal.

 

((((REDACTED))))flat out lied stating “Cox is an Extortionist” in sworn documents to the Ninth Circuit.

 

((((REDACTED)))) states that Cox extorted him, yet ((((REDACTED)))) never filed a criminal complaint in a proper jurisdiction and venue, instead, abusing his power and privilege as an attorney((((REDACTED)))) uses civil courts, WIPO, and mass media to frame Cox, paint Cox in false light, and make Cox look guilty of the crime of extortion without allowing Cox due process of law within the Criminal Justice System, or Cox having a Criminal attorney appointed to her.

 

In this 9th Circuit Amicus ((((REDACTED)))) used his ruling, via his own words, in this court ( District of Nevada, ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox and Bernstein) regarding an unconstitutional TRO, and his words in a WIPO complaint both against Cox and Eliot Bernstein, stating this was evidence that Cox had been adjudicated and found guilty of the crime of extortion.

 

Cox has never been on trial for extortion, under investigation for extortion, adjudicated for extortion or convicted of extortion.

 

((((REDACTED))))also used as his alleged evidence in his Ninth Circuit amicus stating Cox is an Extortionist, a MT real estate board hearing proposal regarding a complaint against Cox regarding MT agency law ( real estate representation laws ) and having nothing to do with extortion.  The proposal was dated July 5th 2013, and was a preliminary hearing document.

 

The Hearing in this Matter, as the record shows was Nov. 21st, 2013, ((((REDACTED)))) did not include updated documentation as that did not support his false allegations. ((((REDACTED)))) deliberately used a preliminary TRO, a WIPO Decision and an unadjudicated ruling to cause Cox further irreparable damage, and with actual malice and knowledge of the facts.

 

January 15th, 2014 was the Adjudication Hearing in this matter, Cox could not attend any hearing on the matter out of lack of money, transportation and fear for her life.

 

Cox was not a licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Montana as of October 2013 due to loss of her home, and extreme duress. Cox now has a real estate firm in the State of Washington as of April 2013.

 

On Feb. 4th, Don Harris, Special Assistant Attorney General,Department of Labor and Industry for the State of Montana, emailed Cox and affirmed that Cox was not under review or disciplined in any way for “committing the criminal offense of extortion”.

 

On Feb. 8th, 2014 the Final Order was issued in this Montana Real Estate agency, non criminal matter and Cox was fined $1000, given 6 months suspension and 8 hours of ethics classes as her disciplinary action. This case was not criminal and NOTHING to do with extortion.



24.)   On February 13th RLG Admitted to Cox the following:

 

Feb 13 at 6:23 PM

Upon further review of the subpoenas issued to GoDaddy, we realize that they were not properly issued.  Pursuant to December 2013 changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the subpoenas should have been issued from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and not the District of Arizona.  (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2).)  Accordingly, we withdraw the subpoenas.

__________________________________

Ronald D. Green, Jr.

((((REDACTED))))



Thereby admitting that ((((REDACTED)))), licensed in Arizona as well as Nevada, and having Superior Knowledge of the Law, had used a false instrument, a forged document per say that was not properly issued in order to gain private information of Cox, Monica Foster, Diana Grandmason, Eliot Bernstein and other contacts, friends, clients and business associates of Counter Plaintiff Cox.

 

25.) On Feb. 13th, 2014 ((((REDACTED))))is in communication with Stephen Lamont, a man who is involved in the iViewit Technology patent thefts, Stephen Lamont has previously threatened Cox that she had better get her affairs in order while she still can. And is involved in ongoing FBI, DOJ, USPTO and SEC investigations regarding the stolen iViewit Technology. As well as named in federal RICO and Racketeering cases regarding the iViewit Technology and inventor Eliot Bernstein.

 

It appears that ((((REDACTED))))has been in communication with Lamont since Feb. 23rd of 2013.

 

((((REDACTED)))) clearly attempted to get Lamont to claim that Cox extorted him, asked for money from him. Randazza offers to represent Lamont for FREE if he will go after Cox in a cybersquatting lawsuit.

 

Lamont admits to helping Randazza to bankruptcy Eliot Bernstein.

 

Lamont has no acting authority in iViewit, yet continues to act against iViewit shareholders.((((REDACTED))))is conspiring with Lamont to retaliate and harass Counter Plaintiff Cox and Eliot Bernstein.

 

In ((((REDACTED)))) communications with Lamont he digs into private family matters, trusts, iViewit technology financial information, and the private life and businesses of Eliot Bernstein.

All of which are under investigation with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, under the Financial Crimes Unit, Special Investigations Division, Detective Ryan Miller, for fraud, forgery and possible murder in the Simon Bernstein and Shirley Bernstein Estate case which involves shares of iViewit.   

 

THE PARTIES

26.)  Counterclaim involves Co-Conspirators, but is limited to ((((REDACTED)))) and ((((REDACTED)))) as per Order Granting Cox permission to counter claim against ((((REDACTED)))) Only. Cox has NO Claims regarding any other ((((REDACTED)))) family member other than ((((REDACTED))))



ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

 

27.)   Counter Plaintiff Cox is an Investigative Blogger having over 1200 blogs and has been reporting on corruption for approx. 9 years. Cox has dedicated her life to giving voice to victims of corruption who have no other way to be heard. Cox is a nationally noted anti-corruption blogger and whistle blower.

 

28.) Cox has owned her own real estate firm since 2000 in multiple states. And has been a successful internet marketing for nutritional supplements for over 8 years.

 

29.) ((((REDACTED)))) has harassed, defamed, taunted threatened and violated the rights of Cox since Dec. 10th 2011, just after Cox’s trial Obsidian v. Cox.

 

30.) Counter Plaintiff Cox has never posted any blog post reporting on corruption to seek a payment to remove such post. Cox has never built a blog nor posted on a blog at any time to later ask Randazza or anyone else she reports on for money, at any time.

 

Cox has never sought to gain commercially nor make a profit of any kind for any domain name, facebook page, news release, blog or web post regarding ((((REDACTED)))) or anyone else.

 

Cox has never posted anything online or bought a domain name, ever to intimidate anyone from not testifying or for any other reason.

 

((((REDACTED)))) has lied about Cox, painted Cox in false light, ganged up with others to paint Cox out as an extortionist and has never filed a criminal complaint and gave Cox due process, though ((((REDACTED))))has superior knowledge of the law and knows that if he felt Cox was guilty of the felony crime of extortion that ((((REDACTED)))) should contact the police, the FBI or other authorities. Instead ((((REDACTED)))) used his power and influence over the media, the INTA, WIPO, law bloggers, Forbes, NPR and this court to paint Cox out to be a criminal guilty of the felony crime of extortion.

 

31.) Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has a history of shakedowns to get litigants to do what he wishes. ((((REDACTED)))) sues litigants to shut down blogs, has been called a copyright troll, sues and then forces his legal fees to be paid and has a history of using media and legal bloggers to create the picture that his target (litigant he sues) is guilty and therefore force them into settling and forces his outrageous attorney fees to be paid via court order. Which, notably has happened in several cases whereby Judge Gloria Navarro was the presiding Judge. ( Note: Respectfully, Cox has named Navorro in legal action and has been denied. Cox intends to file a lien against Navarro’s bond in this court for the harm she has knowingly caused Cox in favor of ((((REDACTED))))

 

32.) Counter Plaintiff Cox has dozens of blogs, facebook pages, online reports and outlets to report on Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) and RLG in order to warn the public at large of their scams, connections to known pedophiles such as Kurt Brackob / Treptow, work with the Free Speech Coalition to silence whistleblowers and porn insiders regarding moving the porn industry to Las Vegas and encouraging violations of Cal OSHA.

 

33.) Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has targeted Eliot Bernstein, iViewit inventor, a victim of court and attorney corruption of whom Cox has reported on for over 4 years.

 

34.) Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has targeted Monica Foster aKa Alexandrian Mayer, who is a porn industry insider, a whistle blower, an investigative blogger and has been stalked, threatened, and under extreme duress by ((((REDACTED))))and those connected to ((((REDACTED)))) for years.

 

35.)  Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has targeted Desi Foxx aKa Diana Grandmason who is a porn industry insider, a whistle blower, an investigative blogger, a certified human trafficking victims and has been stalked, threatened, and under extreme duress by((((REDACTED)))) and those connected to((((REDACTED))))for years.

 

36.) Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED))))has been out to sabotage Cox’s ninth circuit appeal since Dec. 2011

 

37.) Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED))))has sought revenge constantly for Cox choosing UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh over Randazza in her Ninth Circuit appeal,

 

38.) Cox has been unable to obtain counsel in this matter, unable to receive protective orders, unable to enjoin the attorney general and has lost all rights to electronic filing which has caused a great hardship in defending in this matter.



Cause of Action

 

All is written upon knowledge and belief of Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox;

 

First Cause of Action

U.S. Code › Title 28 § 4101 / 28:1332 Diversity-Libel, Assault,

Slander 320 Assault, Libel, and Slander

 

39.)  Counter Plaintiff Cox re-alleges all of the proceeding paragraphs, and fully incorporates the allegations above and incorporates all exhibits, motions, and pleadings she has previously entered into this case.

 

40.) Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has knowingly, with actual malice, published false and defamatory statements to third parties regarding Cox.

 

41.) Counter Plaintiff Cox has suffered irreparable damage regarding these maliciously false and defamatory statements to multiple third parties over 2 years.

 

42.) Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) should be permanently enjoined from publishing further false and defamatory statements regarding Counter Plaintiff Cox.

 

43.) Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) used privileged information against Cox to Defame and Slander Cox, as well as attempt to Sabotage Cox’s ninth circuit appeal and paint Cox out as a Criminal in regarding to proceedings of a civil trial.

 

44.) ((((REDACTED)))) has used Forbes, NPR, Legal Bloggers, his Law Firms Blogs, WIPO Publications, Amicus Briefs, Court Filings, and more to Defame, Slander, harass and intimidate Cox.

 

45.) ((((REDACTED)))) has relentlessly conspired to get others to join him in painting his former client, Cox, out to be a criminal guilty of extortion without filing a criminal complaint.

 

46.) ((((REDACTED)))) threats, actions and and ganging up on Cox with various others has kept Cox in constant duress, in fear of her life, unable to hire counsel, unable to rent a home and under constant attack for over 2 years. Cox has suffered irreparable damage.



Second Cause of Action

Harassment / 18 U.S. Code § 1514 / 18 U.S.C. § 2261A/

18 U.S.C. section 2425



47.) Counter Plaintiff Cox re-alleges all of the proceeding paragraphs, and fully incorporates the allegations above and incorporates all exhibits, motions, and pleadings she has previously

 

48.)((((REDACTED))))has conspired to commit interstate stalking and conspiracy to use a telecommunications device to abuse, threaten, stalk and harass Counter Plaintiff Cox. 918 U.S.C. § 2261A (stalking) and 47 U.S.C. §223(a)(1)(c) (telecommunications abuse/threat/harass)

 

49.) ((((REDACTED)))) has engaged in Cyberbullying, Threats, connected to text threats to Cox, blogs promoting hate against Cox, and constantly bullying, threatening and harassing Cox.
(18 U.S.C. section 2425)

 

50.) ((((REDACTED)))) harassment of Counter Plaintiff Cox has caused Cox irreparable harm of which Cox is entitled to compensation.

 

Third Cause of Action

All related Abuse of Process Laws / 28 U.S. Code § 268 0/

 

51.) Counter Plaintiff Cox re-alleges all of the proceeding paragraphs

 

52.) ((((REDACTED))))abused his power and privilege as an attorney, as an officer of the court to stalk, harass, subpoena, intimidate, conspire with others, gang stalk, threaten, bully, and coerce Counter Plaintiff Cox.

 

53.) ((((REDACTED)))) maliciously and deliberately misused his power and perversion of regularly issued court process, to cause irreparable harm to Cox

 

54.)  ((((REDACTED)))) filed court documents, used subpoenas, contacted private parties, used confidential information, used false instruments and subpoenas for ulterior purpose for which it was not designed for, in order to cause deliberate and malicious harm to Cox.

 

55.)  ((((REDACTED)))) committed a purposeful, malicious and willful act in the use of process which was not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.

 

56.) ((((REDACTED)))) used the judicial process to extort or coerce counter Plaintiff Cox and force her to shut down her online speech which spoke critical of him, exposed organized crime in the porn industry, made fun of him and reviewed his law firm.

 

57.)  ((((REDACTED)))) contemplated, plotted, and orchestrated these actions for ulterior motives and misused his power of the court and judicial process.

 

58.) ((((REDACTED)))) has used the judicial process for illegitimate purposes of shutting down Cox’s speech, parody blogs, review blogs, anti-corruption blogs, all before First Amendment adjudication and having SUPERIOR knowledge of Free Speech laws and First Amendment Rights.

 

59.) Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) used the court process for his own personal gain of shutting down speech, taking intellectual property that competed with him in the search engines and intimidating Cox, as well as painting Cox out to be a Criminal, has caused Cox irreparable damage. Cox is allowed all Relief allowed by law.



Fourth Cause of Action

Attorney / Legal Malpractice, Negligence / 38 U.S. Code § 7316 / 10 U.S. Code § 1054

 

Note: Pro Se Cox is unsure which U.S. Code is involved in Attorney / Legal  Malpractice,

and hereby enacts any and all laws related to attorney client privilege, attorney abuse, neglect and malpractice.

60.)  Counter Plaintiff Cox re-alleges all of the proceeding paragraphs, and fully incorporates the allegations above

 

61.)  Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) used privileged information he gained from Cox acting as her attorney, to conspire with the opposition and harm Cox, to paint Cox in false light and to cause Cox irreparable damage.

 

62.) ((((REDACTED))))deceived Cox into thinking he was trustworthy, when in fact ((((REDACTED))))was trying to sabotage Cox’s ninth circuit appeal, help opposition to steal Cox’s appeal, defame and discredit Cox and and use his attorney / client privilege directly against Cox in multiple ways, thereby causing Cox irreparable damage of which Cox is is entitled relief.

 

63.) ((((REDACTED)))) has refused, and this court has ruled that Cox is not entitled to know the name of ((((REDACTED))))liability carrier for him personally as an attorney and his law firm ((((REDACTED))))

 

64.) ((((REDACTED)))) used his attorney connections with Cox to attempt to chase off other lawyers, stall time for Cox to file her ninth circuit appeal, lie to other attorneys of his representation of Cox and to violate the rights of Cox.

 

65.)  ((((REDACTED)))) sued Cox in the District of Nevada to shut down Cox’s blogs that spoke critical of him, though ((((REDACTED)))) is a huge supporter of those who have blogs speaking critical of others. ((((REDACTED))))gave false information to this court in which resulting in an unconstitutional TRO in which shut down Cox’s intellectual property and online speech with no First Amendment adjudication, this has caused caused Cox irreparable harm.

 

66.) Cox has no way to defend herself against her former attorney Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))), and has thus been under massive and constant duress for 2 years and counting.

 

Fifth Cause of Action

Tortious Interference / Interference with Business Advantage

 

67.)   Counter Plaintiff Cox re-alleges all of the proceeding paragraphs, and fully incorporates the allegations above and incorporates all exhibits, motions, and pleadings she has previously

 

68.) Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has deliberately, directly and maliciously interfered with Cox getting clients, keeping clients, doing business as ((((REDACTED)))) has called, emailed, and contacted individuals in various ways as well as has painted Cox out to be a felony extortionist in big and small media internationally and in sworn court documents. This has made it so Cox has lost her business, lost all revenue, is unable to rent a home, is unable to secure a job and is under constant hate, attack and duress.

 

69.)  Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) has maliciously lied about Cox, painted Cox in false Iight, defamed Cox, mobbed Cox, threatened Cox, had others threaten and defame Cox on his behalf and has attacked Cox in massive amounts of false public accusations, with actual malice, with knowledge that these allegations were false..

 

70.)  Counter Plaintiff Crystal L, Cox has suffered irreparable damage personally and professionally. Therefore, Counter Plaintiff Cox is entitled to all allowable relief by law.



Sixth Cause of Action

Civil Conspiracy

 

71.)    Counter Plaintiff Cox re-alleges all of the proceeding paragraphs, and fully incorporates the allegations above

 

72.)  Defendant ((((REDACTED))))conspired, confederated, and colluded to violate the rights of Counter Plaintiff Cox to the direct benefit of Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED))))and to Counter Plaintiff Cox’s detriment.

 

73.) ((((REDACTED)))) conspired with many lawyers, law firms, WIPO, Forbes, NPR, and other large and small media. Cox has not named co-conspirators in this counter complaint as Cox was Granted court approval to file a counterclaim against Marc J. Randazza only, as this is how Cox understands Motion Granting this filing. ( Document number 162)



Seventh Cause of Action

Violation of First Amendment Rights

 

74.)  Counter Plaintiff Cox re-alleges all of the proceeding paragraphs, and fully incorporates the allegations above and incorporates all exhibits, motions, and pleadings she has previously

 

75.) Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))), having superior knowledge that what he was doing was unconstitutional, as he himself has previously stated in Case No. 3D12-3189, Irina Chevaldina Appellant vs. R.K./FI Management Inc.;et.al ;

 

"If a court issues an injunction prior to adjudicating the First Amendment Protection of the speech at issue, the injunction cannot pass constitutional muster."

 

"A Judicial Order that prevents free speech from occurring is unlawful. (Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law; Principles and Policies 918 (2002) (“The Clearest definition of prior restraint is.. a judicial order that prevents speech from occurring:"

 

"Prior Restraints are “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights.” Neb. Press a*s’n v. Stewart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). There is a “deep-seated American hostility to prior restraint” Id at 589 (Brennan, J. concurring).

 

Injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened damage is heavily disfavored because it interferes with the First Amendment and amounts to censorship prior to a judicial determination of the lawlessness of speech. See Moore v. City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, 41So. 2d 865, 872 (Fla. 1949). “The special vice of prior restraint,” the Supreme Court held,“is that communication will be suppressed... before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment”. Pittsburgh Press Co v. Pittsburg Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 390 (1973). Also se Fort Wayn Books Inc. v Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 66 (1989); M.I.C., Ltd v Bedford Township, 463 U.S. 1341, 11343 (1983.)"

 

"“RKA sought extraordinary relief in the form of prior restraint to enjoin .. . This relief is not recognized in this State, nor anywhere else in the Country. In addition to ignoring the First Amendment Rights and almost a century’s worth of common law, the .. court ignored virtually all procedural requirements for the issue of a preliminary injunction.” Page 5 Paragraph ii of Opening Brief Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Irina Chevaldina Appellant vs. R.K./FI Management Inc.;et.al., Appellees. Attorney for Appellant Marc J. Randazza Florida Bar No. 325566, Randazza Legal Group Miami Florida. “

 

This case is now hereby referenced herein, in it’s entirety.

 

((((REDACTED)))) knowingly used an unconstitutional TRO to shut down blogs of Cox, suppress speech, remove online speech that spoke critical of him, and it has been 16 months.

 

Not only did ((((REDACTED)))) have this court shut down sites, he was given blogs and domain names and Cox’s online speech and intellectual property was redirected in the search engines to a blog post on Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))) legal blog which incited hate against Counter Plaintiff Cox, maliciously and knowingly defamed and slandered Cox and linked to others in conspiracy against Cox.

 

76.) ((((REDACTED)))) used his superior First Amendment knowledge to violated the First Amendment rights of Counter Plaintiff Cox with total disregard of her constitutional right, due process and the laws of the United states of America.

 

77.)  Counter Plaintiff Cox asks this court to apply any and all Causes of Action deemed appropriate and lawful on Cox’s behalf, in which Cox may have left out of this counter complaint, as her limited knowledge of the law as a pro se litigant.

 

Request for Relief

 

78)   Counter Plaintiff pray for judgment against counter Defendant ((((REDACTED)))), individually, professionally and personally  in the amount of $10 Million Dollars

 

79.)   Counter Plaintiff pray for judgment against counter Defendant ((((REDACTED))))  in the amount of $10 Million Dollars

 

80.) Cox asks this court to enjoin ((((REDACTED)))) from inciting hate against Cox, painting Cox out to be guilty of the felony crime of Extortion, knowing that it is false and deliberately causing Cox harm in retaliation for Cox’s online speech regarding Randazza and RGL, and seeking retaliation / revenge for Cox choosing to appeal Obsidian v. Cox to the Ninth Circuit. An appeal that affects the Porn Industry, and retaliation for Cox choosing Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law Professor to represent her over Counter Defendant Marc Randazza and Counter Defendant ((((REDACTED))))

 

81.) Cox asks this court to apply any and all relief allowable to Cox in this matters, as well as any actual damages, punitive damage or any relief whatsoever allowable by law.



Note to Court:

 

Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox cannot get legal counsel in these matters as suing, or defending herself when an attorney is the Plaintiff / Counter Defendant has become impossible as all law firms and attorneys Cox has approached refuse or state it is office policy to not represent a client against an attorney. Also Cox is in fear of her life and is in fear of direct communications and phone calls with((((REDACTED))))attorney, his own law firm RLG. Cox requests that this court rule that Randazza and RLG seek outside counsel in this matter, and grant Cox a court appointed, non-conflicted attorney.

 

Cox has asked this court to appoint her an attorney in “Motion Requesting Court Appointed Counsel” and has been denied. Therefore Cox once again asks this court to appoint her non-conflicted counsel as Cox has done the best she can to fight back against these powerful attorneys and law firms who are putting her life, her business, her clients, her family, and her friends under constant duress for over 16 months now.

 

Counter Plaintiff Cox also asks that this court understand that Cox has no legal training, is penniless, living in church housing and is doing the best she can to defend herself against ((((REDACTED)))), and to please advise Cox where she falls short in these proceedings, as much as possible within the limit of the law.

 

Cox has had her electronic service revoked and has to borrow money to print and mail any documents as ((((REDACTED))))and Co-Conspirators have ruined Cox’s business, reputation and put her in constant fear of her life and the life of her sources."

 

Crystal L. Cox
Pro Se Counter Plaintiff

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment

(((REDACTED))) wishes Cox to Succeed. (((REDACTED))) says People Like Cox are important.

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

"Crystal,

I want to address a few things:

First and foremost, if you feel that I did not treat you respectfully, I humbly apologize. I do not wish to leave that un-discussed. People like you are important for the future of citizen journalism, and I wish to see you succeed. 

 

I also want to correct a misperception here. I did not tell anyone that I represented you, for certain. I did tell the opposing counsel that I thought a deal might be brokered - but that I wanted to speak to him first (to test his waters with respect to a possible mutually agreeable resolution). 

 

Finally, I want to make it clear that our discussion about money was in terms of "costs." I thought that I made it clear that my bills, my fees (my income) would be waived. All that I was asking you about being able to pay was out of pocket reimbursement of expenses. 

 

Despite the contents of this email, I wish to let you know that I am sill willing to lend a hand in any way - even in the background. 

 

-Marc"

 

More on this eMail Thread

(((REDACTED)))

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Comment

((((REDACTED)))) is a Dangerous Man. ((((REDACTED)))) Connections

AUTHOR: Crystal L. C - ()

Someone Calling themself "Ivan Chicken Legs" Threatens Porn Industry Insider, Investigative Blogger Monica Foster.  ((((REDACTED)))) and Diane Duke of the Free Speech Coalition, also Connected to Kenneth P. White of Brown, White and Newhouse and Stalker Ari Bass aKa Michael Whiteacre.

Expose ((((REDACTED)))), Diana Duke and The Free Speech Coalition

 

For More Information on this Serious Matter

randazzanews.com/

 

(((REDACTED LINKS)))

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

J. Malcom DeVoy, Sean Tompkins and Ari Bass aKa Michael Whiteacre work with ((((REDACTED)))) to shakedown litigants, threaten, harass, and gang stalk litigants and porn whistleblower to silence them. 

  James Malcolm DeVoy of Randazza Legal Group assisting Ari Bass aka Michael Whiteacre in his stalking of anti porn activist Shelley Lubben

 

"In 2011, it came to the attention of Alexandra Mayers aka Monica Foster that ((((REDACTED)))) employee James Malcolm DeVoy was working with and assisting Ari Bass aka Michael Whiteacre (of The Real Pornwikileaks) in his stalking of anti-porn activist Shelley Lubben.

 

As of today (February 15, 2014) Bass / Whiteacre has made it known publicly that he is monitoring and recording Alexandra Mayers on her live webcam (of which she performs solo independent live shows as Monica Foster).Bass / Whiteacre has an extensive history of stalking, harassing and threatening Alexandra Mayers and her family members along with various other camgirls, pornstars, ex pornstars and anti-porn activists.

Ari Bass aka Michael Whiteacre tweeting a screen shot from Alexandra Mayers aka Monica Foster's live webcam on Streamate 2/15/2014.  A recording of the show would reflect that Alexandra was sober at the time.

Ari Bass aka Michael Whiteacre tweeting a screen shot from Alexandra Mayers aka Monica Foster’s live webcam on Streamate 2/15/2014. A recording of the show would reflect that Alexandra was sober at the time.

This development is on the heels of Alexandra Mayers making it clear she will be taking legal action against Randazza Legal Group and the privately owned company GoDaddy.  

As of February 13, 2014 it came to Alexandra Mayers’ attention, that ((((REDACTED)))) abused the United States legal and court system in conjunction with GoDaddy in attempt to subpoena her personal information. ((((REDACTED)))) it appears has withdrawn the subpoena and his employee attorney Ronald D. Green has admitted fault in the matter to Crystal Cox.

henderson ari bass michael whiteacre

As of current it appears that Ari Bass may be monitoring Alexandra Mayers aka Monica Foster’s live cam shows on behalf of ((((REDACTED)))) ((((REDACTED)))) specifically). In addition Ari Bass has stated on his twitter he is relocating to the Las Vegas, NV area (fairly close to where ((((REDACTED)))) offices located).

It is advised that independent solo webcam performers use extreme caution if contacted by (and not work with) Bass / Whiteacre or anyone attached to ((((REDACTED)))) "

Source

((((REDACTED))))

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#9 Consumer Comment

((((REDACTED)))) , ((((REDACTED))))  and Ronald Green use the Power of a Subpoena as fraud on the courts and data mine for private personal information.

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

((((REDACTED))))  sues people to suppress information, chill speech, shut down blogs, steal intellectual property and set up litigants in order to force settlements, bully whistleblowers and obtain their private personal information through fraud on the court and abuse of the court process as officers of the court (attorneys).  

 

 

((((REDACTED))))  issued a Subpoena to Godaddy, who Crystal Cox has claimed for over a year has been acting in conspiracy with Godaddy and that Godaddy is listening to Marc Randazza as if he is the COURT when he is just an overreaching, bullying, harassing, unlawful, unconstitutional attorney.

((((REDACTED))))  knows the Laws very well. ((((REDACTED)))) attorney Ronald Green formerly of Greenberg Traurig, a law firm that is named in the Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Technology RICO Case, USPTO Complaint, SEC Complaint and other on going federal investigations regarding the stealing of the iViewit Technology, issued a subpoena to Godaddy in order to obtain the private financial and personal information of Eliot Bernstein and Crystal Cox, as well as other companies and individuals in which Crystal Cox and / or Eliot Bernstein have done business with through Godaddy. 

 This is a clear violation of privacy rights, identity theft rights and financial data rights. An attorney such as ((((REDACTED)))) can sue you for whatever they want to, then when they are in this open case with you such as((((REDACTED)))) vs. Cox which has been open for 16 months, even though ((((REDACTED)))) already shut down massive blogs, stole domain names, chilled speech and has been harassing and defaming Cox since. So the attorney sues you to SHUT YOU UP and remove your online speech about him and to STEAL your search engine placement then uses the case to shut down facebook sites, blogs, and online content in a never ending manner though it clearly is in violation of the First Amendment. 

 ((((REDACTED)))) can sue you then Subpoena individuals and companies he wants in order to obtain your personal, private financial and privileged information to use against you.((((REDACTED)))) hrough his attorney, Ronald Green at ((((REDACTED)))) law Firm ((((REDACTED)))) filed a fraudulent Subpoena in Arizona to obtain the personal records, data of Eliot Bernstein, Crystal Cox and other third parties, knowing full well that they were in violation of the law and the rights of their victims. 

Godaddy answers to ((((REDACTED)))) and NOT to a court of law. See Godaddy takes the word of the attorney and when they get this subpoena they email the parties, or some of the parties and states this in an email to Eliot Bernstein;

"This email is to inform you that we have received a properly formatted subpoena for documents in the following civil action: ((((REDACTED)))) et al. v Crystal Cox et al. issued by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL (D. Nev.).  Our response to this subpoena may require us to disclose some of your personally identifiable information.  Therefore, we are providing this notice as a courtesy to give you an opportunity to object to the subpoena.  The only way to object to a properly filed subpoena is by filing an objection with the court in which the matter is pending.  If you intend on filing an objection, please let us know within 3 business days.  If we do not receive an objection notice indicating that you have filed or will be filing an objection, we will continue with producing the documents requested and may charge your account according to our registration agreement.  Should you require additional time within which to file your objection with the court, please let us know.

 In order to obtain further information related to the pending litigation or a copy of the subpoena, you may contact counsel for the requesting party as follows:

 Ronald D. Green

3625 S. Town Center Drive, Suite 150

Las Vegas, NV 89135

Sincerely,

 A. Maddux

Compliance Specialist"

Godaddy, clearly did not seek legal counsel on any of this and violating the rights of Godaddy customer Crystal L. Cox AGAIN to do the dirty work of ((((REDACTED)))) and the Nevada Courts

Eliot Bernstein Forwarded the eMail to Crystal Cox, I then eMailed the following to Eliot and copied ALL parties including Godaddy and ((((REDACTED)))) . 

"Eliot, 

I just received your email. This is the first I have heard of this massive rights violation. Godaddy has NO LEGAL Right to Give YOUR Financial Information or private information out.I am not giving you legal advice, however, this violates your rights and my legal rights, in my opinion. They already have those domain names((((REDACTED)))) already stole them, and Godaddy let him, there is no LAWFUL reason to subpoena your account when those names are not there anymore, they are in ((((REDACTED)))) account and there is NO COURT ORDER.
 
 A lawyer cannot just tell Godaddy what to do and they do it, Godaddy is Breaking the LAW.
A court order has to be in place, as far as I have heard.
 
A "properly formatted" subpoena is NOT a COURT Order, If Godaddy does this, it is my opinion that you will have a right to sue Godaddy. I have named Godaddy in multiple lawsuits, so If ((((REDACTED)))) can Subpoena Godaddy for our records, that is like saying that because I have sued Godaddy then I can subpoena Godaddy for all their financial records, just because I sued them as ((((REDACTED)))) harassingly sued me, his former client. And you, someone I wrote a story on.
 
It is unlawful unless it's a court order, Godaddy will be liable if they give out your private information, as a matter of law, banking law, court procedure, and constitutional rights. 
 
I have not received any documentation of this matter, I have received no subpoena and I do OBJECT to Godaddy giving out my and your private information. This is unlawful. 
 
Again, if Godaddy allows((((REDACTED)))) a to do this, then in my opinion and not giving you legal advice, then you too have a right to subpoena all of ((((REDACTED)))) GOdaddy information, financial information, and any records you want, all you would have to do, as ((((REDACTED)))) did is sent Godaddy a NOT COURT ORDERED "property formatted" subpoena. In my Pro Se opinion, this is against the law, rules of procedure and violates your privacy rights on many levels.
 
Also Eliot, as far as I have been made aware, you are NOT a party to this lawsuit and have never been served, correct me if I am wrong.
 
Even if you were a party to the lawsuit, Discovery should be OVER, they have all the domain names and its been around 16 months since they filed this attack.
 
How can you Object to the court when it is not court ordered, did you get a court order? I have no record of a court order.  Godaddy is saying here that ((((REDACTED)))) can file a Subpoena that is not from the court, and you have to file an objection with the court when it does not seem to be a court order? Looks like more Fraud to me.
 
Also Godaddy did not send me this information and YES I Object. This is a complete violation of rights.
 
Crystal 
Pro Se
 
Here is the eMail you forwarded me which is the first I have heard of this TOTAL, unlawful invasion of privacy, once I see a subpoena, and see that Godaddy has done this, I will file an attorney general complaint, FBI Complaint, and legal action against Godaddy.  I suggest you do the same, in my Pro Se Opinion. "
 
Within 20 minutes of that eMail Ronald Green of ((((REDACTED)))) , Counsel to ((((REDACTED)))) eMailed the following;
 
""Upon further review of the subpoenas issued to GoDaddy, we realize that they were not properly issued.  Pursuant to December 2013 changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the subpoenas should have been issued from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and not the District of Arizona.  (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2).)  Accordingly, we withdraw the subpoenas.
__________________________________
Ronald D. Green, Jr.

((((REDACTED))))

 

3625 South Town Center Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Tel: 702.420.2001
Fax: 702.420.2003
Email: ((((REDACTED))))
 
So, Clearly ((((REDACTED)))) knows the laws in Neveda and in Arizona as they are licensed in both places and have extensive knowledge of the law. Yet they grossly, willfully, purposely, with malice filed a false subpoena to obtain financial and personal records of parties they sued.

 ((((REDACTED)))) ((((REDACTED)))) and Ronald Green abuse the courts and use lawsuit to set up former clients and those speaking critical of them only. They use the court process, and lawsuits to get peoples information, force settlements, put in blog posts they create as evidence that litigants are criminals and Nevada Judges such as Gloria Navarro stand up for them, though they are acting clearly outside of the law and violating the rights of their targets. 

((((REDACTED)))) , ((((REDACTED)))) and Ronald Green have used a 16 month ongoing, never ending lawsuit against Crystal Cox to keep her under constant duress, attack, subpoena and threats.

 It is unlawful for ((((REDACTED)))) , ((((REDACTED)))) and Ronald Green to have subpoenaed Godaddy and what is worse is Godaddy tells the victims to object on the court docket, with the originating court as if a((((REDACTED)))) subpoena is a court order when it's not even on the docket to be objected to. Had Crystal Cox not STOOD UP to ((((REDACTED)))) , ((((REDACTED)))) and Ronald Green they would have the information right now through a fraudulent overreaching, unlawful Subpoena. 

 A bit about Subpoena's and private information, though Godaddy jumps when ((((REDACTED)))) says so;

 "(2) Issuing Court. A subpoena must issue from the court where the action is pending." Yet ((((REDACTED)))) , ((((REDACTED)))) and Ronald Green file in the court where they are data mining, going for YOUR personal and private information. And clearly violate your rights, though they are seasoned attorneys and CLEARLY know the law and yet they grossly, willfully violate the rights of their targets who they SUE simply to bully them, threaten them, create a docket that makes them look like a criminal with no due process in the criminal justice system and JUDGES let them do as they please in complete VIOLATION of their victims rights.

"Necessarily accompanying the evolution of this power of the lawyer as officer of the court is the development of increased responsibility and liability for the misuse of this power. The latter development is reflected in the provisions of subdivision (c) of this rule, and also in the requirement imposed by paragraph (3) of this subdivision that the attorney issuing a subpoena must sign it.

Second, Paragraph (a)(3) authorizes attorneys in distant districts to serve as officers authorized to issue commands in the name of the court. Any attorney permitted to represent a client in a federal court, even one admitted pro hac vice, has the same authority as a clerk to issue a subpoena from any federal court for the district in which the subpoena is served and enforced. In authorizing attorneys to issue subpoenas from distant courts, the amended rule effectively authorizes service of a subpoena anywhere in the United States by an attorney representing any party. This change is intended to ease the administrative burdens of inter-district law practice. The former rule resulted in delay and expense caused by the need to secure forms from clerks’ offices some distance from the place at which the action proceeds. This change does not enlarge the burden on the witness."

This seems to mean that I as a Pro Se Litigant being my own attorney can issue a Subpoena simple by email or mail to ((((REDACTED)))) and ask for whatever I want?? Attorneys have too much power and attorneys such as ((((REDACTED)))) abuse their power. 

"Sixth, Paragraph (a)(1) requires that the subpoena include a statement of the rights and duties of witnesses by setting forth in full the text of the new subdivisions (c) and (d)."

Does this mean that ((((REDACTED)))) would have to let Godaddy know, and anyone else the rights of those whose private information they are stealing for unlawful purposes?

 "Clause (c)(3)(A)(iv) requires the court to protect all persons from undue burden imposed by the use of the subpoena power. Illustratively, it might be unduly burdensome to compel an adversary to attend trial as a witness if the adversary is known to have no personal knowledge of matters in dispute, especially so if the adversary would be required to incur substantial travel burdens.

Subparagraph (c)(3)(B) identifies circumstances in which a subpoena should be quashed unless the party serving the subpoena shows a substantial need and the court can devise an appropriate accommodation to protect the interests of the witness. An additional circumstance in which such action is required is a request for costly production of documents; that situation is expressly governed by subparagraph (b)(2)(B).

Clause (c)(3)(B)(i) authorizes the court to quash, modify, or condition a subpoena to protect the person subject to or affected by the subpoena from unnecessary or unduly harmful disclosures of confidential information. It corresponds to Rule 26(c)(7)."

 See ((((REDACTED)))) does not ask the courts, nor do they care about your rights or "unduly harmful disclosures of confidential information"((((REDACTED)))) will unlawfully search and seize whatever he wants from you and anyone you have ever known and go after your billing information and private date from those you do business with, even years prior to ((((REDACTED)))) suing you to bully you, harass you and put you under constant duress with no accountability.

 Source of above quotes and more on "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE VI. TRIALS › Rule 45. Subpoena

law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45


Upon receipt of a subpoena, determine the classification of the data

Public data are available to anyone, for any reason.  Not public data can be released only with a court order, statutory authority, or – in the case of private/nonpublic data – with the data subject’s consent. 

"Option one.  If the subpoena is for the inspection or copies of not public data, the entity or its legal counsel, may submit a written objection to the requesting party or attorney named in the subpoena. " NOT if ((((REDACTED)))) does not serve or notify parties but only Subpoenas who you know or do business with and get's information not through a court order and without the parties being able to object as they are NOT informed by ((((REDACTED)))) even though a 2 second eMail would have done that. Oh and don't forget in ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox, ((((REDACTED)))) , ((((REDACTED)))) and Ronald Green GOT the courts to take away Crystal Cox's right to file electronically so I have no rights to immediate access to court filings or to object in a timely manner. 

Source of Above Quotes and more on non-public data and Subpoenas

ipad.state.mn.us/docs/subpoena.html

      Right to Financial Privacy Act

"The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 was enacted to provide the financial records of financial institution customers a reasonable amount of privacy from federal government scrutiny. The act, which became effective in March 1979, establishes specific procedures that government authorities must follow when requesting a cus­tomer’s financial records from a bank or other financial institution. It also imposes duties and limitations on financial institutions prior to the release of information sought by government agencies. In addition, the act generally requires that customers receive ..."

 Source of Above

federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/priv.pdf

Yet Godaddy was ready to give up personal financial data, simply because ((((REDACTED)))) said so.

Identity theft laws, banking laws, and other privacy laws are a factor, yet ((((REDACTED)))) is Above the Law. And ALL without a Court Order. 

It is Unlawful search and seizure for ((((REDACTED)))) to request personal information in a copyright case simply to retaliate and harass a litigant that he does not like, and has targeted. 

Lot's more on the illegal, unethical, over reaching fraud on the courts and abuse of process by ((((REDACTED)))) , ((((REDACTED)))) and Ronald Green coming soon, 16 months worth of it. And ((((REDACTED)))) , ((((REDACTED)))) and Ronald Green NEVER let's up in harassing, bullying and trying to entrap, set up, and suppress the speech of Blogger Crystal Cox.

Oh and don't forget when ((((REDACTED)))) SUES you, Discovery lasts eternally so he can swoop in and take what he wants when he wants and keep your life under constant hate, harassment, stress and duress. And he has no accountability and you cannot counter sue him as the Courts protect ((((REDACTED)))) , ((((REDACTED)))) and Ronald Green.

Guess I need to file some Subpoena's as I am my own attorney and therefore it looks like a clerk of the court in the way of Subpoena Law. WOW the Power of Attorneys, SICK Really. Abusive Certainly.

Here is the Lawsuit Crystal Cox Filed Against Godaddy

docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkid3V3djFON2hhZmM/edit

 

Here is more on the iViewit Case, as Ronald Green has serious conflicts of interest with his former Greenberg Traurig connections.

((((REDACTED))))

iViewit / Eliot Bernstein SEC Complaint, RICO Case

iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

Lot's more will be posted in order to warn the public and show you what Ronald D. Green, Jr.((((REDACTED)))) does to abuse the court process and what other overreaching lawyers can and will do as well.

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#10 Consumer Comment

((((REDACTED))))  Crystal Cox and the use of Preliminary Injunctions as a tool to Chill Speech and silence Whistle Blowers

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

Crystal Cox ((((REDACTED)))) , Preliminary Injunction Wars; "Injunction against blogger critical of Miami Heat owner is overturned by appeals court" Oh and who was the Bloggers Attorney, Yep ((((REDACTED)))) who got an unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction of his own against Blogger Crystal Cox.


First Amendment Attorney ((((REDACTED)))) Says that Preliminary Injunctions are Unconstitutional.

Yet ((((REDACTED)))) LIED to the Nevada Courts, GOT an unlawful, unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction against Blogger Crystal Cox, then over a year later tries to use it as criminal evidence to convince Ninth Circuit Judges to allege Crystal Cox has a history of extortion.

((((REDACTED)))) Quote from a Motion Defending AGAINST Preliminary Injunctions


“RKA sought extraordinary relief in the form of prior restraint to enjoin .. . This relief is not recognized in this State, nor anywhere else in the Country. In addition to ignoring the First Amendment Rights and almost a century’s worth of common law, the .. court ignored virtually all procedural requirements for the issue of a preliminary injunction.” Page 5 Paragraph ii of Opening Brief Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Irina Chevaldina Appellant vs. R.K./FI Management Inc.;et.al., Appellees. Attorney for Appellant Marc J. Randazza Florida Bar No. 325566, Randazza Legal Group Miami Florida."

Source of Above Quote
a601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.30.0.pdf

I wonder If I, Crystal Cox, could Get ((((REDACTED)))) to represent me and overturn my Preliminary Injunction and the 2 years of harassment that went with it from ((((REDACTED)))) , Ronald Green ( ya, clearly Joking on that). But maybe someday I will get an attorney and be able to SUE ((((REDACTED)))) for what he has done to me. I have tried, but thus far Corruption Owns the Courts.

Here are a Couple of Lawsuits Against ((((REDACTED)))) and Others, Filed by Blogger Crystal Cox

Florida Case 
((((REDACTED))))

New Jersey, Where WIPO Panelist, Attorney Peter L. Michaelson Is
docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiN3gyM0VlUE5LdXM/edit

Ok back to ((((REDACTED)))) and his LOVE / HATE Relationship with Preliminary Injunctions.

So you see ((((REDACTED)))) gets an unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction against Blogger Crystal Cox, steals her domain names, harasses and defames her for years and then wants to WIELD this magical unconstitutional, unlawful Preliminary Injunction as evidence that Crystal Cox is an Extortionist.

 

Why? Because he says so that's why.




Anyway here is the latest news on the VICTORY for the Blogger


Injuction against blogger critical of Miami Heat owner is overturned by appeals court

"A Florida appeals court has overturned an injunction against a blogger whose sole topic is criticizing Miami Heat part-owner Ranaan Katz, saying the lower court wrongly applied the state's exception to First Amendment concerns for invoking prior restraint, reports Popehat.

The lower court merely considered allegations that Irina Chevaldina's blogging was both defamatory and, particularly, a tortious interference with business relationships.

There was no proof of such interference, the Third District Court of Appeals said in its opinion (PDF), and thus Florida's exception to the prior restraint rule under the First Amendment does not apply.


"Angry social media postings are now common," wrote Judge Vance Salter for the court. "Jilted lovers, jilted tenants, and attention-seeking bloggers spew their anger into fiber-optic cables and cyberspace.

But analytically, and legally, these rants are essentially the electronic successors of the pre-blog, solo complainant holding a poster on a public sidewalk in front of an auto dealer that proclaimed, 'DON'T BUY HERE! ONLY LEMONS FROM THESE CROOKS!'"


A problem would arise, the court said, if the complainant with a poster entered the dealership and harangued customers or threatened violence, but that in that instance there is well-established law which would provide remedy.

"The same well-developed body of law allows the complaining blogger to complain, with liability for money damages for defamation if the complaints are untruthful and satisfy the elements of that cause of action. Injunctive relief to prohibit such complaints is another matter altogether."


Katz, a minor owner of the professional basketball team, owns a real estate development company. Chevaldina is a former tenant, and was represented by ((((REDACTED)))) of the ((((REDACTED)))) and Jeffrey Crockett of Coffey Burlington in her appeal of the injunction."

Source
abajournal.com/news/article/injuction_against_blogger_critical_of_miami_heat_owner_is_overturned_by_app/

I wonder what Crystal Cox will be awarded for the Unlawful Preliminary Injunction ((((REDACTED)))) got against Her, and tried to use to set her up for crime and did use to silence speech and steal massive amounts of intellectual property and TOP search engine placement.
rkassociatesusa.blogspot.com/2014/02/rk-centers-raanan-katz-were-ordered-to.html

 

Let's Look at the RULING and ((((REDACTED)))) Big VICTORY


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

Oh, hey, hypothetically, what if the Ruling Judge threw in, ya we overturn the Injunction but the Blogger did rob a bank apparently, just sayin". (well according to ((((REDACTED)))) rule of law, that A ok with him)

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

The court determined that:

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

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

Wow just like Marc did to me, his claims and wala he gets a preliminary injunction. I wonder if this precedent can and WILL be used against ((((REDACTED)))) . I am Betting It WILL.

The Ruling Goes on to say, "A temporary injunction “should be granted only sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proved facts entitling it to relief.” Liberty Fin. Mortg. Corp. v. Clampitt, 667 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)."

WOW, well ((((REDACTED)))) proved NO FACTS in ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox and Bernstein, yet he filed gag orders, injunctions, stole blogs, shut down sites, and even redirected my blogs to a post on his blog defaming and lying about me. Oh well that's all fine because ((((REDACTED)))) WINS.

More..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Crystal Cox, for some reason, has no First Amendment Rights.

So her SPEECH was shut down, just like that, no rights, no due process, no First Amendment Adjudication and yes massive irreparable damage to Crystal Cox and ((((REDACTED)))) and ((((REDACTED)))) above the law and have no liability for their actions, or so it seems.

A bit more..

"the trial court failed to make specific findings to support the elements required for the entry of an injunction. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610. “A temporary injunction that merely recites legal conclusions is insufficient to support its entry.” Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., 2 So. 3d 1100, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

The order on appeal fails to set forth factual findings justifying the entry of the temporary injunction and is therefore inconsistent with the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. Nor does the transcript of the hearing on the motion provide any such specific findings.

Conclusion 

 Angry social media postings are now common. Jilted lovers, jilted tenants, and attention-seeking bloggers spew their anger into fiber-optic cables and cyberspace. But analytically, and legally, these rants are essentially the electronic successors of the pre-blog, solo complainant holding a poster on a public sidewalk in front of an auto dealer that proclaimed, “DON’T BUY HERE! ONLY LEMONS FROM THESE CROOKS!”

Existing and prospective customers of the auto dealership considering such a poster made up their minds based on their own experience and research.

If and when a hypothetical complainant with the poster walked into the showroom and harangued individual customers, or threatened violence, however, the previously-protected opinion crossed the border into the land of trespass, business interference, and amenability to tailored injunctive relief.

The same well-developed body of law allows the complaining blogger to complain, with liability for money damages for defamation if the complaints are untruthful and satisfy the elements of that cause of action. Injunctive relief to prohibit such complaints is another matter altogether.

 For all these reasons, the non-final “Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Tortious Interference, Stalking, Trespass, and Defamatory Blogs,” is reversed and vacated in its entirety.

The scope of our review and this opinion are confined to the claims and motions for temporary injunctive relief. We express no opinion regarding the merits of the still-pending claims for money damages by the appellees based on alleged defamation, trespass, invasion of privacy, tortious interference, and conspiracy. "

Guess this means ((((REDACTED)))) Preliminary Injunction against Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein is reversed as well. Oh ya, the Law Does NOT apply to ((((REDACTED)))) , I keep forgetting.

Oh an Nicholas Bulgin may want to Take Note; Remember the ManwinSucks.com Preliminary Injunction.

stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/2013/01/nicholas-bulgin-fight-back-know-your.html

Oh and take a look at the Run on Preliminary Injunctions in Nevada


"ViaView, Inc. v. Chanson et al"

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

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


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

Even Similiar Wording as the Preliminary Injunction Magic in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL

But See in SOME Cases, a Preliminary Injunction is Unconstitutional


Preliminary Injunction are Unconstitutional Depending on Which Side your Attorney is On.
docstoc.com/docs/141369776/State-of-Nevada-Case-212-cv-02040-GMN-PAL-in-Connection-to-Irina-Chevaldina-Appellant-Appellate-Case-No-3D12-3189

In the District of Nevada, the Most Important thing is the Attorneys Pay Check, and the Law, the Constitutional Rights of Defendants, Due Process.. well that's Just Irrelevant... 

Judge Gloria Navarro is THIS Nevada Attorneys SuperHERO.. it's all about the ATTORNEY making money and making a mockery of the courts on the Taxpayers Dime..

Suing Whoever they want.. then getting their attorney fees, intellectual property, fines paid to them and what ever they want in the MAGICAL Land of the District of Nevada.. Wheee.. Living is Good if you are the RIGHT Law Firm in the Fairy Prince Land of MONEY and Make Believe Called District of Nevada.

Judge Gloria Navarro Gives Some More Magic.. 

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

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

Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited



Research Links Regarding Ronald D. Green, Greenberg Traurig, Judge Navarro and More.

"The Plaintiff has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims sufficient for the Court to issue a limited Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement and inducement of copyright infringement. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) To show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must show that: (1) it owns the copyright to which its infringement claims relate; and, (2) Defendants violated one of the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the works. See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2010); Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir 1977); Educational Testing Servs. v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533, 538 (3d Cir. 1977). These two factors have been clearly established by the Plaintiff."

Source of Above Judge Gloria Navarro RULING Favoring the SAME Plaintiff
nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120621_0003126.DNV.htm/qx

So this SAME Plaintiff ALWAYS seems to show "substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim"? Really?  

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

It sure seems to VIOLATE the Rights of the Targets, the Defendants in some sort of pattern of "shakedown", in my Opinion. Maybe authorities will take a look when I file my Complaints. Who knows, but someday, somehow, the TRUTH will Come Out, I Hope.


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

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

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

 
I get threats of death, violence and Judge Gloria Navarro IGNORES my Real Emergency, talk about a racket... Las Vegas, the Land of Lawlessness, INDEED..

Frozen Accounts, Preliminary Injunctions, FORCED Attorney Fees? WOW, sure SEEMS like quite a racket to me, IN MY OPINION.

scribd.com/doc/105188141/Liberty-Media-Holdings-v-FF-Magnat
"Section 505 of the Copyright Act grants district courts discretion to award “
a reasonableattorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs"

Don't ya just LOVE IT, they sue their TARGET, and the Judge Forces the TARGET, VICTIM aKa Defendant to PAY the ATTORNEYS outrageous Fee's.  And if you Don't SHE will Freeze your Accounts. Pattern and History, I THINK SO.. in my NON-Attorney OPINION.


Don't Forget Liberty Media Holdings allegedly is infringing on the iViewit Technology and many companies owned, at least in part by Liberty Media Holdings are named in iViewit Technology


OUTBREAK of Preliminary Injunctions, Sweeping Rapidly, Seemingly Out of Control, through the District of Nevada, yet Granny Goose Alleges these RULINGS are an "extraordinary remedy"
stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/2013/03/pro-se-litigant-investigative-blogger.html

Gee and here we all thought Judge Gloria Navarro was not ((((REDACTED)))) B**** and full of conflicts of interest. What a tangled web we weave over there with Greenberg, ((((REDACTED)))), Navarro and the gang.

 
The Full Hypocritical Filing of ((((REDACTED))))Regarding the 
Unconstitutional actions of Preliminary Injunctions.
 

Page 8 of above;
 
"This appeal Seeks to cure an unlawful prior restraint on the Appellant’s First Amendment rights, improperly imposed by the lower court. On November 19, 2012, the circuit court enjoined Appellant from writing, “defamatory” blogs 'in the future, despite expressly making “no findings of facts as to actual ‘violations of law by the [Appellants], except that [Appellants] have blogged extensively about the Appellee] and many of these blogs are arguably defamatory.” (RÃ/14)

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

                      WOW, " the injunction is patently unconstitutional"

                        is that because ((((REDACTED))))did not file it?

Page 10

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

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

WOW again, Really? So all that money to seek a "clearly unconstitutional remedy"?

But what if the Plaintiff was Marc Randazza and the injunction chilled online speech, stole intellectual property and tormented his former client?

Oh well that's ok, see because that's  ((((REDACTED)))) making a mockery of the courts and abusing his privilege and power as an attorney of law. 

Oh and you see, his complaint ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox and Bernsteing, turns out, as he just perjured to the Ninth Circuit, the whole case was about Extortion, yet, oops he forgot to include that as a cause of action or file a criminal complaint, oh SNAP.

Full Hypocritical Motion Linked Below
docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiT3M2c1FVbHZqX2c/edit

Let's Take a Look at the Free Speech Supressing SLAPP Lawsuit in Nevada, 

((((REDACTED)))) v. Crystal Cox and Eliot Berstein
 
Here is the Unconstitutional, Extortion Accusing TRO Motion against Crystal Cox and iViewit Technology Inventor, Victim of Corruption Cox was reporting on, Eliot Bernstein


Defendant Crystal Cox's Opposition to  ((((REDACTED)))) unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction
ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.30.0.pdf

Crystal Cox did not even get First Amendment Adjudication for the massive blogs, domains and websites Marc Randazza seized through an illegal, unconstitutional, seriously over reaching TRO temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction

Crystal Cox Response to TRO Motion

ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.30.0.pdf

 

TRO Motion Supplement, accusations of Criminal Activity of Cox and Bernstein

 

Defendant Crystal Cox Response to TRO Motion Supplement

 

((((REDACTED)))) TRO Motion Reply to Response

 

Another  ((((REDACTED)))) TRO Response, with false accusations

 

A letter from Ronald Green, ((((REDACTED)))). A pending hearing he deems as a ruling and sends to Godaddy and WOW they give the names to ((((REDACTED)))), just like that.

 

Defamatory, Over Reaching, Unconstitutional Order Ruling Against Cox and throwing in some accusations, and “pot shots” to further harass, defame and discredit Cox.

 

So who is it that Does not want the Attorney General involved and an Investigation by Authorities?? Well Crystal Cox wants an investigation,  ((((REDACTED)))) does NOT.


Crystal Cox wanted a Criminal Investigation and asked the Court to Investigate  ((((REDACTED)))) and his abuse of Crystal Cox and her informants. Cox also asked to enjoin the attorney general.

Crystal Cox wanted due process of law for the extortion allegations, what she got was judges and attorneys ganging up on her and flat out stating Crystal Cox’s guilt without Cox being on trial for or under investigation for Extortion and thereby given due process in the criminal justice system.

Motion Requesting to Investigate ((((REDACTED))))

((((REDACTED)))) is afraid of an investigation and “protests”, all the while accusing Blogger Crystal Cox of extorting him, which is a crime, so why object to enjoining the attorney general and an investigation?

Investigation DENIED by Judge Gloria Navarro

Motion to Enjoin Attorney General

Order Denying to bring in the Attorney General, gee and isn’t Cox involved in Felony Extortion and yet ((((REDACTED))))and Judge Gloria Navarro, though their ethical duty, don’t want authorities or criminal investigations?? Hmmmm

ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.139.0.pdf


Take a Look at this information. Marc Wants an unconstitutional preliminary injunction he got, to serve as criminal evidence against his target, victim, Crystal Cox, in a Ninth Circuit Civil ruling NOT about extortin.
crystalcox.com/2014/02/crystal-cox-on-marc-randazzas-ninth.html


A Bit on The Ninth Circuit Rant and What Really Drives ((((REDACTED))))
docs.google.com/document/d/1PJLtqD3SQ_twfQdTClEHNgP-Kt3scT0n6EewWWcNF-Y/edit

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#11 Consumer Comment

((((REDACTED)))) Rants Extortion and Toddler Attack But files a Civil Suit against a Penniless Blogger instead of a Criminal Complaint, WHY?

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

Comment on Bob Garfields NPR, on the Media Site begs the Question, Why did ((((REDACTED))))file a Civil Suit and WIPO claim for cybersquatting when Crystal Cox had attacked his wife and toddler and extorted him, which is a Felony?

Things that make you say, Hmmm.

"A.C. Senray

I certainly admire ((((REDACTED)))) commitment to free speech rights. But I'm a little bit confused by his refusal to bring claims against Crystal Cox. Is he arguing that the First Amendment should overwhelm any kind of action, civil or criminal, for defamation, invasion of privacy, harassment, or racketeering? It seems like((((REDACTED)))) might have a plausible claim for any of these things or more, all based on the content of Cox's speech. While I am a free speech advocate, I think all these kinds of claims are valid. Why did he think he could assert only a domain name cybersquatting claim against her? 

Jan. 26 2014 11:22 AM" 

Source

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/combating-bad-speech-more-speech/ 



Well, A.C. Senray, you see, ((((REDACTED)))) LIED and has NO CASE for Extortion, so he wants the Civil Courts to take his word and simply RULE that Cox is an Extortionist, based on no evidence because HE SAYS SO. 

More on Bob Garfield's Interview of ((((REDACTED))))

industry-whistleblower.blogspot.com/2014/02/bob-garfield-is-flat-out-lying-about.html


More on What Drives Riddler ((((REDACTED)))) and his Over the Top, "doth protest too much" RANT and hate campaign against Blogger Crystal Cox.

docs.google.com/document/d/1PJLtqD3SQ_twfQdTClEHNgP-Kt3scT0n6EewWWcNF-Y/edit

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#12 Consumer Comment

Crystal Cox on ((((REDACTED))))Ninth Circuit Rant and What Drives ((((REDACTED)))).

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

A Bit on  ((((REDACTED)))) Ninth Circuit Rant

 

 

((((REDACTED)))) attorney((((REDACTED)))) continues to Cry Extortion Allegations against his former client Crystal Cox, in improper venues.

((((REDACTED))))has filed an Amicus Brief lying to the courts once again about Crystal Cox. He abuses his power as an attorney to bully, harass, defame and distort litigants he targets. The purpose seems to be to steal domain names, suppress speech, force settlements, silence and intimidate whistleblowers, scare people into doing what he says, and force pay for his law firm even when they act as if they are Pro Bono

((((REDACTED)))) claims over and over that Crystal Cox has had due process and adjudication for extortion. Yet Crystal Cox has never had any kind of due process for extortion allegations. Crystal Cox has her former attorney ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) legal group state over and over that “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST”. And because of his power and influence over big media and the courts, he is believed for some reason. And the rights of those he targets, simply seem to not exist.
 
((((REDACTED)))) is desperate for Judges to simply state that Cox is an Extortionist, and to not give Cox due process for this alleged crime. See, it is best for ((((REDACTED)))) if the Judge just state that Crystal Cox is an Extortionist,  then his legal blogger friends, and big media buddies, oh and his WIPO buddy Peter L. Michaelson can use those “statements” not based in facts of a criminal investigation but simply ((((REDACTED)))) painting the picture of Extortion, as some sort of “factual evidence” against Cox so that ((((REDACTED)))) can continue to bully, harass, attack and defame Cox through is abuse of the court system and his media connections.
 
See ((((REDACTED)))) wants Ninth Circuit Judges job to be to accuse people of crimes in civil rulings, when those litigants have had no criminal charges, and no due process in the criminal justice system.
 
((((REDACTED)))) continues to claim he was extorted after an eMail I sent him asking if he knew anyone needing marketing. So this was in December of 2011. Why not file criminal charges immediately against Crystal Cox and get those adjudicated, due process charges as a matter of law? See if ((((REDACTED)))) would have filed criminal charges, he would then have that investigation to include in his Ninth Circuit Rant. Oh, but the only problem is there is no evidence or proof of “Cox is an Extortionist” other than the rant of ((((REDACTED)))) and his big media friends and legal blogger buddies. Oh and the eMail in which Kevin Padrick told Forbes and the New York Times that Cox had used to Extort him, after he got a $2.5 Million Judgement. The truth, of course being, that Cox’s email was taken out of context, was one of 5 emails and was a settlement offer between attorneys, as Cox was Pro Se, and trying to stop legal action against her. The email had nothing to do with the complaint that was filed BEFORE that time, as the record of LAW, clearly shows. Crystal had been sent a legal threat on December 22th 2010, the Blog Post she was on trial for was posted Dec. 25th 2010 and she was sued January 14th 2011. The email “they” claim to be extortion was a reply eMail in response to a legat threat and a 10 million dollar lawsuit filed.
 
David Aman, Tonkon Torp Lawyer took one email out of context and gave it to the Seattle Weekly, claiming extortion. Kevin Padrick gave it to David Carr of the New York Times and Kashmir Hill of Forbes and I was not on trial for extortion. It had no material fact in any way, so how can ((((REDACTED)))) think it is ok, as a matter of law, for there to be a Ninth Circuit Ruling on Cox being an Extortionist, or posting about corruption to seek a pay off,  when that is not what this case is about.
 
If Lawyer ((((REDACTED)))) feels Cox is a Criminal and his buddies Judge Gloria Navarro, and attorney Peter L. Michaelson, WIPO panelist feel Crystal Cox is a criminal then do they not have a duty to report me to the property authorities, and protect the public at large? Or is it simply a matter of law and constitutional rights to just state Cox is an Extortionist in a Judicial Ruling? And to wave the proof as the Plaintiff words in the case, words to WIPO and his words to big media, all painted out to slander, defame and paint his target, the defendant in false light.
 
In ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox, District of Nevada ((((REDACTED))))
sued Crystal Cox and he won in the first month.
 
I say he won because he got my Domain names, he shut down my sites, he got what he calls a gag order, which is unclear if that is what it is. All this with an illegal, unconstitutional TRO that completely sidestepped all my due process rights. So why now 15 months later is he still using this open case to attack, defame and violate the personal and professional rights of blogger Crystal Cox, and other litigants like me in which he bullies and sues to get what he wants or silence?
 
Clearly Crystal Cox has no money, so why keep up with the attack? Well to suppress the truth about ((((REDACTED)))) and his connections to thoseinvolved in pedophilia, human trafficking, porn industry prostitution, the fight to NOT ban condoms and move porn to vegas and all that Crystal Cox is posting to expose his friends and clients, and him, mostly now via the Monica Foster, porn industry whistleblower blogs.
 
((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox in Nevada is a blatant attack on Crystal Cox to suppress her speech. And attacks iViewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein, one of those who has experienced over a decade of massive justice of which I report on.
 
All ((((REDACTED))))had to do was lie to a court, submit motions stating his version of facts, add in blog posts of his friends that the court calls “legal commentary”, such as Jordan Rushie, news articles by his friend Kashmir Hill of Forbes, blog posts by his forensics files friend Tracy Coenen, and his flat out lies to NPR and other news outlets.
 
And his target, those he bullies and sues, well they get no rights, no counter claim, no due process and simply get convicted of extortion by way of an over reaching, unconstitutional Judicial TRO Ruling accusing Cox of criminal activity of which was not a material factor or cause of action of the case, or any case Cox has ever been in.
 
((((REDACTED)))) controls the Nevada Courts, has WIPO connections, has big media connections and has a gang of lawyers who post what ever he wants. This creates the public view of whatever he wants the perception to be of whatever case he is working on and forces litigants to settle, to silence or to do whatever action ((((REDACTED)))) wishes them to do.
 
((((REDACTED))))CIVIL Complaint Against Crystal Cox/ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.1.0.pdf
Really it’s a SLAPP suit to silence my speech, a defamation lawsuit and a platform to accuse me of extortion, but he sues under copyright issues and alleged conspiracy, though he had no copyright. More on all that later.

 Keep in mind, Eliot Bernstein never was served in this action and Crystal Cox accepted service Electronically to fight back. See ((((REDACTED)))) files legal actions, doesn’t serve the litigants then uses that to harass and attack them.  So I joined the case thinking it was a court of law, in order to fight back for justice for all. What was I thinking, the law did not apply to me, that is clear. ((((REDACTED))))control’s the Nevada Courts and abuses his power as an attorney and connections to do what he wants to who he wants.

 

Attorney ((((REDACTED)))) used an Unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction, TRO to shut down blogs, steal intellectual property and alter the search engines. Though, he himself is quoted in other case as to this kind of action being unconstitutional.

 Excerpt from Crystal Cox’s Objection the TRO, quoting a past case of ((((REDACTED))))

“The Preliminary Injunction in this Case against Defendant Crystal Cox is Unconstitutional.

If a court issues an injunction prior to adjudicating the First Amendment Protection of the speech at issue, the injunction cannot pass constitutional muster. This court denied Defendant Crystal Cox Due Process in expressly skipping the essential step of adjudicating the First Amendment protections to the speech at issue. 

This court denied Defendant Crystal Cox Due Process in failing to make any findings of fact or ruling of law, much less review of the blog articles and the First Amendment. Plaintiff ((((REDACTED)))) is a Public Figure. (New York Times Vs. Sullivan)

A Judicial Order that prevents free speech from occurring is unlawful. (Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law; Principles and Policies 918 (2002) (“The Clearest definition of prior restraint is.. a judicial order that prevents speech from occurring:).

 Prior Restraints are “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights.” Neb. Press a*s’n v. Stewart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). There is a “deep-seated American hostility to prior restraint” Id at 589 (Brennan, J. concurring).

 Injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened damage is heavily disfavored because it interferes with the First Amendment and amounts to censorship prior to a judicial determination of the lawlessness of speech. See Moore v. City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, 41So. 2d 865, 872 (Fla. 1949). “The special vice of prior restraint,” the Supreme Court held,“is that communication will be suppressed... before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment”. Pittsburgh Press Co v. Pittsburg Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 390 (1973). Also se Fort Wayn Books Inc. v Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 66 (1989); M.I.C., Ltd v Bedford Township, 463 U.S. 1341, 11343 (1983.)

 In this case, the Nevada Court has skipped the step of adjudicating the First Amendment protection relevant to the speech at issue. Prior Restraints are Unconstitutional. Also see Post-Newswek Stations Orlando, Inc. v. Guetzlo.

 “RKA sought extraordinary relief in the form of prior restraint to enjoin .. . This relief is not recognized in this State, nor anywhere else in the Country. In addition to ignoring the First Amendment Rights and almost a century’s worth of common law, the .. court ignored virtually all procedural requirements for the issue of a preliminary injunction.” Page 5 Paragraph ii of Opening Brief Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Irina Chevaldina Appellant vs. R.K./FI Management Inc.;et.al., Appellees. Attorney for Appellant Marc J. Randazza Florida Bar No. 325566, ((((REDACTED)))) Miami Florida. This case is now hereby referenced here in, in it’s entirety, as seen in Exhibit J.”

 Source of Above Quote

 

(Stay tuned for lot’s more on the Hypocrisy of Porn Attorney ((((REDACTED)))).)

 

Crystal Cox did not even get First Amendment Adjudication for the massive blogs, domains and websites ((((REDACTED))))seized through an illegal, unconstitutional, seriously over reaching TRO temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction
 
Here is the Unconstitutional, Extortion Accusing TRO Motion against Crystal Cox and iViewit Technology Inventor, Victim of Corruption Cox was reporting on, Eliot Bernstein
 
Crystal Cox Response to TRO Motion
 

TRO Motion Supplement, accusations of Criminal Activity of Cox and Bernstein

 
Defendant Crystal Cox Response to TRO Motion Supplement
 
((((REDACTED)))) TRO Motion Reply to Response
 
Another ((((REDACTED))))TRO Response, with false accusations
 
A letter from Ronald Green, ((((REDACTED)))). A pending hearing he deems as a ruling and sends to Godaddy and WOW they give the names to Marc Randazza, just like that.
 
Defamatory, Over Reaching, Unconstitutional Order Ruling Against Cox and throwing in some accusations, and “pot shots” to further harass, defame and discredit Cox.
 
So who is it that Does not want the Attorney General involved and an Investigation by Authorities?? Well Crystal Cox wants an investigation, ((((REDACTED)))) does NOT.
 
Crystal Cox wanted a Criminal Investigation and asked the Court to Investigate ((((REDACTED)))) and his abuse of Crystal Cox and her informants. Cox also asked to enjoin the attorney general. Crystal Cox wanted due process of law for the extortion allegations, what she got was judges and attorneys ganging up on her and flat out stating Crystal Cox’s guilt without Cox being on trial for or under investigation for Extortion and thereby given due process in the criminal justice system.
 
Motion Requesting to Investigate ((((REDACTED))))
((((REDACTED))))
 
((((REDACTED)))) is afraid of an investigation and “protests”, all the while accusing Cox of extorting him, which is a crime, so why object to enjoining the attorney general and an investigation?
((((REDACTED))))
 
Investigation DENIED by Judge Gloria Navarro
((((REDACTED))))
 
Motion to Enjoin Attorney General
((((REDACTED))))
 
Order Denying to bring in the Attorney General, gee and isn’t Cox involved in Felony Extortion and yet ((((REDACTED))))and Judge Gloria Navarro, though their ethical duty, don’t want authorities or criminal investigations?? Hmmmm

((((REDACTED))))

 

Hey Let’s Take Away her right to file electronically so we can file s*** and she has to pay to print, and mail it, though ya she is penniless and we are wealthy a*****e attorneys.
((((REDACTED))))
 
Motion to Declare Cox a Vexatious Litigant
 
Vexatious Litigant Supplement
 
So funny,((((REDACTED))))did not accept service in cases where I sued him, yet acknowledges them and thereby has been served via electronic serving. And ((((REDACTED)))) worked with all the Judges, yet did not enter the case, as they all attacked Cox, and with only Marc’s word to go on.

 Oh and ya the Florida Judge said Cox’s claims were,  “baseless in light of the fact that the Complaint is comprised of conclusory allegations that are oft-times fantastic or delusional.” In which you see in the above documents filed by((((REDACTED)))).

 Here is the Florida Case (((((REDACTED))))

 And the Overreaching Judges accusations of me, “Pot Shots” slipped into a dismissal. Gee I wonder where the Judges overreaching Opinion of Crystal Cox came from?

((((REDACTED))))
 
ALSO take NOTE; it is a FACT that porn prostitution rings exist, porn agents are actually pimps. And the porn industry is involved in human trafficking, gang stalking attorneys who silence whistel blowers whatever it takes and all manner of organized crime.
 
Here is Crystal Cox’s Objection to being Declared a Vexatious Litigant
((((REDACTED))))
 
Oh Snap, sorry buddy ((((REDACTED)))), you can’t declare Cox a Vexatious Litigant when you sued her. But tell ya what ol’ friend, I will accuse her of some crimes in my ruling for ya, hope that makes you feel better. So the “Judge” SLAMS Crystal Cox as she rules in her favor.
((((REDACTED))))
 
Crystal Cox, through her attorney Eugene Volokh Files a Motion to Rehear
So Before we get much, MUCH further down the rabbit hole of what Drives Porn Attorney ((((REDACTED)))) let’s take a look at his most recent attack against Crystal Cox, his Ninth Circuit Rant, kicking and stomping, oh and flat out lying in order to get the Ninth Circuit to declare Crystal Cox a Criminal without actual filing criminal charges and allowing due process.
 
A Ninth Circuit Ruling makes Bloggers Equal to Traditional Journalists in Big Media and of the Institutional Press. Yet at the same time uses the ruling to issue an Opinion, not of material fact or cause of action in the case, that Crystal Cox reports on corruption matters simply so she can ask for a retraction for a pay off. This is not a fact, this has never happened and is not lawful to simply throw into a Ninth Circuit Ruling.
 
Is there a Conviction of Record for the Crime of Extortion of Crystal Cox or Not? If not, and so many Judges and attorneys believe Cox is committing the Felony of extortion, then why not protect the public at large and file a criminal complaint, an FBI complaint, a Department of Justice or Attorney General Complaint?
 
How is it the proper venue to simply state, with actual malice, over and over Cox is an Extortionist in civil cases, legal blogs and big media? And claim this is evidence to include in a Judicial Ruling as to Cox’s alleged criminal behavior, though Cox was never given due process in the criminal justice system?
 
Yes this very ruling gives blogs and media the right to to rant, and have an opinion and even accuse Cox of crimes so long as they truly do NOT have “actual malice”. However it is not lawful or constitutional nor is it judicially ethically to accuse people of crimes the judges “think” may have “apparently” happened, that are not even part of the case nor issues of the appeal, and thereby discredit the litigant and prejudice the litigant in her lower court trial before she even gets there, and is pro se in the lower court.
 
Judges should not, as a matter of law, include willy nilly, random pot shots at litigants they may not like simply to discredit them, or seemingly to make the blogger look like a criminal so that the bloggers reports on corruption are not believed by the masses, or other court processes.
 
Can they prove extortion? If so, then why use a ninth circuit amicus for the venue instead of a criminal court of law?  Why am I singled out to not be allowed due process for this alleged crime? Why do I not get a criminal attorney appointed? I have no money and live in church housing. I have a right to a criminal trial and a criminal attorney, in a proper court venue.
 
And not simply a random, drive by per say throwing it into a ruling that has nothing to do with extortion, which is a Felony, a “Crime”. And not a civil matter at issue in this Ninth Circuit Ruling.
 
I, Crystal Cox, have worked hard for this precedent, and gave all I knew to be my life for it. I was spiritually led to do this, to make this stand. And if I have a criminal investigation so be it, I have faith.However, this Ruling is the most important ruling for Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers of our times and I don’t want this to happen to them when they are breaking the news, exposing corruption, or reporting on the news in their area or expertise.

 The Wall of Corruption NEEDS to come down and Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers are the ones that are doing it.This is NOT about me personally, I am fine with an extortion investigation. I am fine with hating me, thinking I am a criminal. Go for It. I do not need approval, nor to be liked. You know your Truth and I know mine.

 I simply want it in the proper court, and not thrown in to this ruling as if it is a material fact of this case, because it is not. I don’t want overreaching judges and rogue aggressive attorneys to silence those  Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers, to “chill their speech” within the very ruling that professes to gives them equality in the courts. Go ahead and attack me personally, however this is not about me. This is about all who this divinely important ruling affects.

 

I say Let Freedom Reign.

 I want  Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers to be Free in their reporting, to be protected TRULY equal to that of the New York Times, Forbes, USA Today, and Rogue Attorneys and their “legal commentary”, used as fact and evidence against litigants.

 The truth is the truth and these  Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers are the ones really exposing it. Not Lawyers, Not Judges, Not Big Media, Not Traditional Reporters.

 I feel it is my duty to protect them ALL to the best of my ability. Which is a HUGE reason I chose Eugene Volokh ove((((REDACTED)))) to litigate this delicate and vastly important issue of our times.

 I want this ruling to truly level the playing field in what is the “news”, that is protected within our justice system and invite ALL in to tell their story, to report the real news by the People for the People without Fear of massive judgements, discrimination in courts or retaliation from Judges throwing in “pot shot” attacks and aggressive attorneys painting the picture that the reporter is not credible and is a criminal not to be trusted.

 Which, by the way, even if you are reading the news from a “criminal” that does not mean the news is not true nor does it mean it should not have equal protection under the law. It is a separate issue and matter of law and constitutional rights.

 As an anti-corruption blogger who has faced extreme prejudice and retaliation within the legal system itself, I know the unique set of free speech, extreme retaliation and whistleblower rights issues that go with it. This has become a big part of my divinely led, life mission, and I take it very seriously and pray about it several times a day, for clear direction.

 I understand the fear those like me have when they want to speak out on the corruption or issues they know about. I want to give them a voice. I chose to give voice to victims of corruption. It was not happening to me, I simply felt divinely led to give voice to who I could, to do something to make this world a better place for all.

 I don’t simply want them to have the right to rant and be protected under the First Amendment, I want ALL Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blowers to be treated equally in the courts and that includes protection from retaliation within that court system on all levels.

 It is a Fact, as a matter of law, that No Judge, no court of law has convicted me of the crime of extortion. Yes they have engaged in slander, hearsay and painting me out to be an extortionist, however I have no conviction of extortion. Therefore they are slandering and defaming me in judicial rulings, with no due process or adjudication for the crime of extortion.

 Was I Convicted of Extortion or Was I Not when these statements were made? It is a matter of Fact and law, either I was convicted of extortion when these Judges, WIPO and various other outlets accused me of extortion or not.

 Is there a Conviction of Record for the Crime of Extortion of Crystal Cox or Not? If not then it does not belong as Fact in a Ninth Circuit Court Ruling.

 Does anyone have a conviction of Crystal Cox for criminal acts or not, when they made these statements in judicial rulings, in WIPO decisions, in Real Estate Boards? No they did not. So how is this something that is used in a court of law as evidence by judges to make rulings that accuse Cox of illegal, criminal behavior without giving Cox due process of law, and constitutional rights.

 No Judge has ruled that I, Crystal Cox, was guilty of extortion, they simply allege that as part of their copyright case, domain name cases, free speech suppression cases and denials of my rights to counter sue and to shut down my blogs exposing corruption in the porn industry, connected to Marc Randazza.

 Just because Judges, Lawyers, and their media connections state something over and over, that does not make it fact that a ninth circuit judicial ruling or any judicial ruling should use as material fact, evidence against anyone, for any reason.

 If it is not a FACT that Crystal Cox was convicted in a court of law of extortion then a Judge should not randomly throw it into a ruling as evidence against Cox, for any reason.

 FACT:  Crystal Cox has never been convicted of the crime of extortion. Cox has never had a criminal complaint filed for the crime of extortion. Cox has never had a criminal attorney. Cox has never had a criminal investigation. And there is a clear pattern and history among judges, attorneys and controlled media to paint Cox out to be a criminal in order to discredit my stories of corruption. Yet there is no Criminal Conviction of Record as a matter of law.

 ((((REDACTED))))twisted his legal ease, used his own slanderous and defamatory, false statements in lower court motions as some evidence that Cox is a criminal, and wants the Ninth Circuit to be the judge and jury on that issue. Yet Crystal Cox has never been convicted of a crime, in a court of law that should be what Ninth Circuit Appellate Judges go by.

 ((((REDACTED)))) used his lower court rulings, and false statements in motions and to WIPO as some sort of proof of “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST” in a Ninth Circuit Amicus Rant. There is something very wrong with this and ((((REDACTED))))certainly “doth protest too much”. And in the WRONG legal venue.

 I am not asking to be believed nor am I trying to hide that the world “believes” I am guilty of the crime of Extortion because Judges and Attorneys have painted that picture. They have also painted that picture about one of the victims of corruption I report on Eliot Bernstein, inventor of the iViewit Technology and a victim of the world’s largest technology theft.

 I am asking for due process, constitutional rights, a criminal attorney and a criminal court process. As what is being done to me, can and is done to ALL anti-corruption bloggers.  It is not right, lawful or constitutional for over reaching judges and attorneys to simply state something they want “believed” by the masses and then it is a matter of fact and law just because they are judges and attorneys, and it is in a Judicial, higher court ruling.

 If these Judges and Lawyers thought me guilty of a criminal act, a felony then why simply state it in a judicial opinion, in news outlets, on legal blogs and why not file a criminal complaint? And why say “apparently”, either it is fact or not. The word “apparently” is “unnecessary”.

 In the Nevada Case I asked for an attorney over and over, I even filed a motion to adjoin the Attorney General, I want this all investigated, they do not want to be investigated. So they use the courts, law blogs, and big media to convict me, instead of a criminal court. This violates my due process rights and this violates my constitutional rights, and I am not the only one this happens to. It is my moral duty to protect all that this happens to and fight back to protect them, to the best of my ability.

 I FIRED Marc Randazza as my attorney. Though his buddies seem to believe he “chose” not to represent me, the record clearly shows otherwise.

 I chose Eugene Volokh because I wanted Eugene Volokh to be the face of this massively important social issue of our times and not a porn attorney who constantly berated me, tried to control me, tried to force me not to appeal, bullied me, harasses me, acts as a male chauvinist a****** and has put me under constant duress and hardship in every way for over 2 years and counting.  That was NOT the face for this DIVINE Ruling that brings relief to the masses, in opening the doors for the “real news” to freely poor out and have equal protection under the law.

 It should be clear by now that there is a conspiracy to convict me of a crime without an actual trial for that crime in order to discredit me and who I am reporting on. ((((REDACTED)))) even sued Eliot Bernstein in the ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox, Bernstein Nevada case he touts as his proof somehow that “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST”. And attorney ((((REDACTED))))named Eliot Bernstein in the WIPO case to discredit the World’s largest Technology Patent theft story of Eliot and iViewit, I have reported on for years, in which affects ((((REDACTED))))client in the porn industry.

 I Made a Stand Against Over Reaching Judges, and Attorneys who abuse their power and the court process. This STANDis for the Rights of ALL Citizen Journalists, Anti-Bloggers,and Whistleblowers.

 I, Crystal Cox, through my constitutional rights attorney Eugene Volokh, am asking for a Redaction of the allegation of criminal activity, that is not a material fact in this civil court ruling.

 If the Ninth Circuit Judges grant this then it says yes, it is not acceptable for judges at any court level to simply ad lib, or take pot shots at litigants based on opinions and prejudices that are not a “matter of law” nor based in adjudicated facts for that exact issue or accusation.

 If the Ninth Circuit Judges do not grant this redaction, then we know that the Ninth Circuit says, as a matter of law, constitutional rights and legal precedent that it is ethical, LAW and FACT to state someone engaging in criminal activity, in a judicial ruling that is not about that that activity. They would be saying it is ok for the New York Times or some free speech suppressing attorney to simply write an article, lie to WIPO and sue litigants and then use all of their own story they created, as factual evidence for a Judicial Ruling to essentially convict you in a ruling that will be your legacy and used against you ever day of your life and used against others reporting on corruption as a way to discredit them, harass them and retaliate against them.

 We will watch and See what Rule of Law applies to Blogger Crystal Cox, and ALL Citizen Journalists, Anti-Bloggers, and Whistleblowers,who do what she does, EXPOSE Corruption.

 Here is Eugene Volokh’s Motion to Rehear, Redact A Few Quotes from this Motion; “Appellant Crystal Cox does not ask this Court to modify the substance ofits opinion. She does, however, respectfully request that the Court amend its opinion to withhold the sentence that now says,  “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seek-ing payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech, N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. “A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” could be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court. But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit ofcross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process. The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a factfinder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201.

Moreover, while the New York Times column does discuss Cox’s offering her consulting services to appellees in this case, it does not make any suchallegations about other cases. There thus seems to be no “history” of “seeking payoffs” claimed in the article. The “history” that the column is positing appears to be only a history of Cox’s “making similar allegations.”

Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, some media outlets have not only repeated this sentence, but even omitted the term “apparently” in doing so.

The widely reprinted Reuters wire service, for instance, wrote, According to the court’s opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities “and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”

Dan Levine, Blogger Gets Same Speech Protections as Traditional Press:U.S. Court, Reuters, Jan. 17, 2014”

“ Of course, some such media omissions of qualifiers (such as “apparently”) are inevitable. Still, they highlight the fact that, when a statement is made in a Court of Appeals opinion—with the authority such opinions possess—journalists might perceive the statement as a factual finding, and not just a report of what a Judicial opinions are perceived as extraordinarily reliable sources of information.

This reliability stems from the assumption that statements in the opinion, especially statements that allege misconduct, generally rest on adjudicated facts.

Because of this, Cox respectfully requests that this particular allegation, which relies solely on a claim made in a newspaper column, be redacted from the opinion. “

 Source docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit

 ((((REDACTED)))) Files Ninth Circuit Rant to Side Step Criminal Justice Process

((((REDACTED)))) in a “though does protest too much” Rant, files an Amicus Brief to try and protect all of his motions, free speech suppression, WIPO fraud, judicial rulings, harassment and more that rely ONLY on his ability to state that Cox is an Extortionist over and over in Judicial Motions and convince judges to simply convict Cox because he says so. And use his WIPO connections to get WIPO to use a world publication to accuse Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein of the crime of Extortion simply because First Amendment Bar, Porn Attorney((((REDACTED))))says so.

 Here is ((((REDACTED)))) Ridiculous Amicus citing improper reasons that the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in a Civil Case should somehow convict Crystal Cox of criminal activity simply to justify ((((REDACTED)))) lies and fraud on the court in ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox and Bernstein in Nevada and his fraud and lies to WIPO about Crystal Cox and iViewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein.

 Amicus in Support of Neither Party aKa, Hey Judges this is about me, for me and so I command you to do as I say to benefit me.

 A Few Quotes, Blathers and Flat out Lies

Crystal Cox’s yammer and rebuttal is in BLUE.

 “((((REDACTED)))) brief will assist this Court in deciding Cox’s pending petition forrehearing, requesting that this Court issue a new opinion removing the citation to David Carr’s New York Times article titled “When Truth Survives Free Speech,” accusing Cox of seeking payment for retraction. Regardless of the procedural basis the Court uses for discussing Cox’s extortionate practices, the Court’s observations are correct and should stand, albeit augmented with stronger sources. “

 ((((REDACTED)))) brief is not here to “assist this Court”.((((REDACTED)))) is here to protect his unethical and unconstitutional actions and judicial accusations tormenting, defaming, harassing and flat lying about Crystal Cox for over 2 years.

 ((((REDACTED)))) says, “Regardless of the procedural basis the Court uses for discussing Cox’s extortionate practices”. WOW, so he is basically saying, hey I can help, as a matter of LAW, but the procedural base is of no matter to me, I just want to make sure you stick it to her, and slander her in your ruling, oh and violate her rights of due process so you don’t make me look bad for doing this to her in every venue possible for over 2 years.

 ((((REDACTED)))) says, “the Court’s observations are correct and should stand, albeit augmented with stronger sources.” You see he seems to think it is “this Court’s” job to make an “observation” and a ruling as to whether Cox has posted allegations and than sought pay off to remove those allegations instead of adjudicated facts on those slanderous and defamatory statements.

 Oh and wait, ((((REDACTED)))) wants “stronger sources” quoted for this blatant, unconstitutional attack on Crystal Cox. And just what are those STRONG sources that convict Cox of posting on fraud and corruption and then seeking a pay off for a retraction, well of course HIM. His words and lies to WIPO, his words and abuse of the court process in ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox and Bernstein, his unconstitutional preliminary injunction and his betrayal of his ex-client Crystal Cox who told him about Martin Cain, the man who filed a real estate complaint against Cox based in perjury, fraud and lies.

 I have put emails into the record in the Nevada case that show that ((((REDACTED)))) contacted Martin Cain and they have “conspired” against me. This was before the “ The Proposed Disciplinary Treatment of the License of Crystal L. Cox Case” that ((((REDACTED)))) seems to cite as some legal reason to accuse me of Extortion in the Ninth Circuit when that case was NOT about extortion, as are the words right from the Attorney General involved in the case, which I have in an email.

 Yep, ((((REDACTED))))sure seems to be guilty of malpractice to me, violating my rights and attorney client privilege, but I can’t seem to get anyone to go up against him in a lawsuit and “his Judges” simply dismiss mine and accuse me of criminal acts in the process.

 More on the ((((REDACTED))))Rant begging for an Appellate Court to CONVICT Cox of the Crime of Extortion because he says so;“As set forth in((((REDACTED)))) concurrently submitted brief, Cox is an extortionist, and has been identified as such in public records that may be judicially noticed by this Court under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 – including the United States District Courts for the District of Nevada, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the State of Montana Board of Realty Regulation. All of these authorities have found Cox’s conduct to be extortionate, and all may be relied on by this Court even if the New York Times’ accurate discussion of her conduct cannot.”

 Oh SNAP, there you have it,((((REDACTED)))) says, “Cox is an extortionist” so there it is, Cox must be then right? NOT.

 None of the cases ((((REDACTED)))) cites adjudicated the crime of extortion nor gave me due process on the crime of extortion, PERIOD.

 ((((REDACTED)))) Says: “This matter is of critical importance because Appellees are far from Cox’s only victim. As set out in ((((REDACTED)))) brief, Cox has engaged in a nationwide pattern of cyber-extortion.

Cox, who has draped herself in the First Amendment in this appeal, now seeks to suppress valuable information about herself from the public record, to the detriment of her victims who may seek redress from the Courts.

 Within days of winning an ostensibly important First Amendment victory from this Court, she has revealed her true censorious nature and sought to have critical, factually verifiable information about her removed from the public record.

 The rich irony of this development appears to be lost on Cox and her censorious request.”

 Oh Cox get the “richness” of the Irony, indeed.

 I am not saying ya’ll don’t have the right to call me a criminal on your blogs, oh unless you know I am not guilty of extortion and knowingly post false information with “actual malice”, then of course that may be a different story.

 See folks this matter is of “critical importance” because of all of Cox’s victims. Oh I mean all those Cox reports on that are engaged in unethical and unconstitutional and even possibly illegal acts that want to shut her up, need this ruling to paint Cox out as the bad guy to protect corruption. Oh and it’s so important and accurate that these alleged victims of my extortion scheme did not seek authorities to prosecute me but instead want a Ninth Circuit Appeal case, not related to a criminal case for extortion that does not exist, to simply convict me of a crime and call it good.

 There is NO nation wide extortion pattern.

 There is a nation full of those creating victims, lots of corrupt and over reaching judges, lots of rogue attorneys and others to report stories on. But I forget those are “victims” according to market ((((REDACTED))))and not simply subjects, people, companies that I am reporting on as ((((REDACTED))))says on his blog Cox is not a Journalist. Oh and here in this Amicus D*** Swinging Contest we see ((((REDACTED))))yell from the rooftops, “COX IS AN EXTORTIONIST”.

 I do not seek to suppress valuable information. If it is so valuable dumbass, and you are protecting the public from my alleged cyber extortion schemes, then why did you not file a criminal complaint instead of years later whine to an appellate court over a defamation case?

 No victims will “seek redress” as there are NO victims, there are only those I am reporting on. And if these alleged victims seek redress because I allegedly extorted them then they would not use a Ninth Circuit Civil Court ruling to do so. They would go through the proper channels in the criminal justice system.

((((REDACTED)))) is one such attorney that I report on, as I allege he is connected to organized crime in porn, human trafficking and supports pedophiles. I get tips constantly regarding all this and they are people I report on, ((((REDACTED)))) included. They are not victims and I have never ever posted anything and then sought a payment to retract what I posted, that is flat out malicious and false, PERIOD.

Yes I WON a huge victory, and no thanks to ((((REDACTED)))) who told me not to appeal, tried to force me to stop my appeal, conspired with the opposition to auction off my right to appeal and constantly attacks, berates, sues, gang stalks, bullies, and threatens me.

((((REDACTED)))) Says; “ she has revealed her true censorious nature and sought to have critical, factually verifiable information about her removed from the public record.” This is flat out bulls***. I don’t give a s**t what he says about me, rant from the rooftops. However to put this in a judicial ruling and call it “factually verifiable information”,  now this is simply unlawful, unethical, slanderous, defamatory as a matter of law and certainly unconstitutional. IT IS NOT Factual nor Verifiable.

 There are no victims and if some feel they are victims of me being an extortionist than a Ninth Circuit Civil Court is not going to help them, try the FBI, the Department of Justice instead.

Oh Ya here we have a victim crying out now, let’s take a look;

 “((((REDACTED)))) is yet one more of Cox’s victims, and has been subject to Cox’s extortive scheme. As set forth in the brief accompanying this motion, ((((REDACTED))))and other members of his family are also engaged in litigation against Cox in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox, Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL. ((((REDACTED))))action was brought to bring an end to the extortionate conduct Cox has levied against him, and the harassment Cox has engaged in against his wife and even his toddler daughter.”

 WOW,((((REDACTED)))) is a victim of Crystal Cox’s extortion scheme, and this happened 2 years ago and he did not file criminal charges and he is an attorney? Hmm.. oh and Cox attacked his toddler daughter and he did not contact the police, the FBI?

 Cox harassed his wife and toddler? Really? Or did Cox call his wife a s***, as ((((REDACTED)))) defended Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a s**t. oh and the attack on a toddler is a flat out, no proof lie, in order to get NPR, Forbes and other sympathy for poor porn, pedophile supporting attorney THUG ((((REDACTED)))).

 Oh and WOW, breaking NEWS, ((((REDACTED)))) says,“Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL. ((((REDACTED)))) action was brought to bring an end to the extortionate conduct Cox has levied against him”Geez and he filed a civil case to shut down massive online speech of Crystal Cox that spoke critical of him. Wow, the whole ((((REDACTED))))v. Cox and Bernstein is now about extortion, really? Does that make sense? Isn’t extortion a felony, why not go through the criminal process? Oh, I know because ((((REDACTED)))) owns the Civil Process, or thinks he does.

 See ((((REDACTED))))threatened me, attacked me, tried to force me not to appeal, tormented me, was massively jealous I chose Eugen Volokh over him and pissed off that I bought ((((REDACTED))))and did not do waht he told me to do when he told me to do it. SO he launched a 2 years and counting cyber attack on me, lawsuit attack, WIPO attack, and his buddies have massive hate blogs and have emailed me and texted me threats Yet he sued me to stop my harassment campaign, guess he misses the “richness” of the irony on that one.

 I guess all I can say to all that is Liar Liar Pants on Fire. I will share with you and Poke some fun at ((((REDACTED)))) perjured declaration of non-fact, coming soon.

Full Defamatory, Ridiculous Document Quoted Above

 
Eugene Volokh’s Opposition, Response to ((((REDACTED)))) leave to file his Amicus Rant
 
Looks to Me that ((((REDACTED)))) gets his a*s kicked on that one.Here is Marc’s dribbling Reply to Eugene’s Opposition oops could have used some more case law there dips***.
 
WOW, what a Document. Sure does seem like a ranting protest to me.A tantrum, to get judges to violate law and infringe on the rights of litigants because((((REDACTED)))) says so.
 
So funny, in ((((REDACTED)))) Ninth Circuit Rant, he says "doth protest too much". Odd because the case has nothing to do with him and his only motive is to paint Cox out to be a criminal without going through the criminal justice system. ((((REDACTED))))not involved in the case, files a ranting, accusing, perjured Amicus Brief, another words kicking and screaming and protesting. Then when his brief gets a response filing, well he calls that "doth protest too much"

Even though there is no lower court record of the crime of Extortion. ((((REDACTED)))) Wants it LAW. Marc wants Cox is an Extortionist in a Ninth Circuit Ruling simply because he says so and to cover up his own unethical, unconstitutional, seriously over reaching behavior. And then says “doth protest too much”, about those who have been in the case for 2 years on appeal. Hmmm.. who is that is really protesting too much and therefore drawing attention to his own behavior and abuse of the court process.

Here is an online Statement from Crystal Cox, in Support of the Ninth Circuit Motion to Rehear and Redact the judicial panels over reaching statements aKa “pot shots” at Defendant Crystal Cox.
docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit
 
Here is Excerpts from ((((REDACTED)))) Reply to
Eugene Volokhs Opposition, Response.
 
“((((REDACTED)))) does not even seek for the Court to take notice of the WIPO panel’s or Montana Board of Realty Regulation’s ultimate decisions – just that they made factual findings.”

 They were not factual findings on the allegation of Extortion, these cases were not a cause of action or complaint about extortion. They were agency law for real estate, and WIPO was a domain dispute, a trademark dispute and Nevada was about the Lanham Act and copyright issues. There are no factual findings to the allegation of extortion, whatsoever.

 “ She just does not want it done. Cox’s only possible motivation to hide this information from the Court’s view, by relying on legal doctrines inapposite to ((((REDACTED))))argument, is to conceal the true nature of her actions from her victims and the public at large.”

So ((((REDACTED)))) wants you to believe that the Ninth Circuit is the place to protect the public at large from felons engaged in the criminal act of extortion? WOW.

 Cox does not want it hidden, Cox wants facts in a Ninth Circuit Judicial Ruling. If the judges have convicted Cox then take out the word apparently and just do it.

See, the facts are, there is no Extortion and there was NEVER a blog post put up by Cox, in her million blog posts over a decade that Cox put up to ask for payment to take down. This simply never happened nor was ever a motive of Crystal Cox, me, EVER.

 Is the Ninth Circuit Civil Court of Appeals, the “record” for extortion convictions?

 There is no way that “Crystal COX is an EXTORTIONIST” can be hidden there ((((REDACTED)))), you made sure those false and defamatory statements published to a third party were spread far and wide, over and over for 2 years and counting… oh and you had actual malice as you were involved, and you were my attorney. So ya, you are Liable as a matter of law for the harm you have done to me, but hey, who cares, ((((REDACTED))))rules the courts and has NO LIABILITY to His Clients, no respect for his clients, and certainly no accountability so it’s all good.

 “Ultimately, Cox’s goal is to erase this important factual observation from the Court’s Opinion, so that she may attempt to wield this decision as evidence of the Court’s imprimatur upon her extortion scheme. The Court should decline to grant Cox this privilege, as every adjudicative body that has examined her conduct has reached the same conclusion: Cox is an extortionist.”

 Ya.. ummm.. NOT.

 Cox is asking for due process. Cox tried to get investigations by authorities in the Nevada case and ((((REDACTED)))) and his friend the Judge, Judge Gloria Navarro “doth protest way too much”. And so, NOPE, no criminal investigation, but I would like one, welcome one.

I am certainly not trying to hide that the world believes I am an extortionist. I am trying to show how attorneys, judges and controlled media paint out bloggers exposing corruption to be the ones guilty of corruption and no due process is necessary to do so.

There is no “factual” observation, there is an observation based on ((((REDACTED)))) version of facts in order to torment, harass, silence, intimidate, and suppress the speech of his former client Crystal Cox, who is tattlin’ on his dumb, egotistical, greasy porn scum a**.

 Oh and no worries of my “attempt to wield” I will d*** sure be doing that. As I will file Department of Justice Complaints, FBI Complaints, Lawsuits, Bar Complaints and everything I possibly can to PROTECT the public from attorneys such as Marc Randazza and Judges such as Gloria Navarro and Loretta Preska and a whole lot of other Judges. As well as rogue, lawless attorneys such as NOT NEUTRAL WIPO panelist Peter L. Michaelson.

Yep, let the wielding begin.

 No matter what this ruling is. I will be up on them thar white horses wielding my WIN and protecting the innocent from Porn SCUM, Evil A******* such as ((((REDACTED)))) and overreaching, rogue, above the law bankruptcy Trustees such as Kevin Padrick.

 Oh and NO adjudicative body has ever adjudicated the allegation of Extortion nor even looked at who accused me or what evidence they had to do so.

And no conclusion was reached that “Cox is an Extortionist” from a court that had investigated or adjudicated Cox for Extortion.

 Here is a link to((((REDACTED))))Neener Neener to Eugene, then pulls my hair and runs back off to the playground, REPLY.

 
Just because a rogue, aggressive attorney says over and over that “Cox is an Extortionist” does not make it so. Do Your Homework, Investigate.

So Folks, check your facts, or join the lynch mob, whatever, that is of your free will. But either way, surely you want the Ninth Circuit to Obey the Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, don’t ya?

 
Crystal Cox's Statement in Support of Motion to Rehear, Redat

Here is Crystal Cox’s statement After Her Win

 
Here is a bit about the motion to Redact

crystalcox.com/2014/02/independent-anti-corruption-bloggers.html


Click Below for a live Version of the Above and stay tuned for Lot's more on what really Drives ((((REDACTED))))and why he really "doth protest too much".
docs.google.com/document/d/1PJLtqD3SQ_twfQdTClEHNgP-Kt3scT0n6EewWWcNF-Y/edit

Respond to this report!
What's this?

“The greatest threat to free expression in America is no longer the government,” says ((((REDACTED)))), an online-free-speech defense lawyer. “It’s corporations and wealthy plaintiffs using the courts to intimidate ordinary people who just want to speak honestly on the internet.”"

 

Source

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/paul-levy-the-web-bullys-worst-enemy/

 

((((REDACTED)))) abuses the power of the courts and his power as an attorney to paint people out to be who every he wants. He uses his power over the courts, in media and other law bloggers to gang stalk, harass and force settlements in lawsuits.

 

((((REDACTED)))) has used the courts to intimidate, harass, and steal intellectual property from Blogger Crystal Cox, who is simply speaking honestly on the internet. 


((((REDACTED)))) is a wealthy Plaintiff who has used his money and power to harass, terrorize, gang stalk, defame and paint out blogger Crystal Cox to be a criminal simply because he does not like her tactics, her online speech. However, we see yet again Hypocritical ((((REDACTED)))) speaking just the opposite of the way he has acted in his non-stop attack of penniless blogger Crystal Cox.

 

((((REDACTED)))), wealthy Plaintiff flat out lies to the courts and perjures himself in order to win case and silence whistleblowers exposing him and his clients in organized crime, aKa "the Porn Industry".

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#14 Consumer Comment

Ken White, Brown White & Newhouse talks about iViewit in his Rebuttal. Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com is attempting to protect those infringing on the iViewit Technology.

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

Ken White of Brown White & Newhouse is part of a group of attorneys that use their power in the courts, in media, and on their own legal blogs and network to bully litigants in their cases and each others cases into settlements, into silence, and oftentimes even into suicide.

Lawyers, Judges, and Controlled Media work together to control the outcome of legal cases, to push litigants to settlements, to suppress stories of corruption, and to silence whistleblowers. And they make independent news outlets, bloggers, whistle blowers, and citizen journalist’s lives, assets, friends, family, quality of life, the collateral damages of their agenda. Ken White of Brown White and Newhouse and Marc Randazza are part of these gang stalking attorneys that abuse the court process to bully people into silence and affect the outcome of court cases.

 
Ken White speaks of iViewit and inventor Eliot Bernstein in this Rebuttal. iViewit is the worlds biggest technology theft . Here is the iViewit RICO, Civil Case in New York, naming Popehat.com in the motion, which is Ken White, Kenneth P. White of

Brown, White and Newhouse seem to be very knowledgeable in Civil RICO cases as per their website, yet Ken White slams Eliot Bernstein and the iViewit story, here, in a rebuttal against me, Crystal Cox? If Ken White can read, and do some verifiable fact checking, it would be easy to see that I am defending those harmed by lawyers, patent attorneys, judges, big media companies, tech companies and more. But then again the Porn industry owes iViewit Billions for using the iViewit Technology and Ken White defends those in the porn industry.

Porn and iViewit Video Technology Theft

crystalcoxdotcom.blogspot.com/2013/03/brad-weber-benetsafe-bradley-weber-brad_7.html

crystalcoxdotcom.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-frontier-media-inc-noof-former-ceo.html

industry-whistleblower.blogspot.com/2013/03/fortress-investment-group-nyse-fig-porn.html

Vivid uses iViewit Techology and targets Porn to Children

eliotbernstein.com/2013/03/vivid-entertainment-vividcom-steven.html

Liberty Media, client of Jordan Rushie of PA and ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) USES iViewit Technology. Crystal Cox named Liberty Media as part of  her RICO / Racketeering lawsuit fighting back against ((((REDACTED)))) . 

Marc Randazza, Crystal Cox's former attorney, sued Crystal Cox and used the power of WIPO and media connections to sue, silence and paint blogger Crystal Cox out to be an extortionist. Crystal Cox was and is exposing attorneys ((((REDACTED)))) , Jordan Rushie, Ken White and more involved in a mass conspiracy to silence Crystal Cox's story on the worlds largest technology theft, iViewit.

Crystal Cox RICO Lawsuit Naming Liberty Media

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

((((REDACTED))))  Ronald Green use to be with Greenberg Traurig, a named Defendant in the iViewit Case. Greenberg is also counsel to Liberty Media. Ronald Green has lied to the courts about Crystal Cox, used New York Times articles and blogs as court evidence to steal intellectual property, sue and harass Crystal Cox, former ((((REDACTED)))) client.

A bit more on Greenberg.

greenbergtrauriglibertymediaholdings.blogspot.com/2013/01/greenberg-traurig-law-firm-is-named-in.html

greenbergtrauriglibertymediaholdings.blogspot.com/2013/01/liberty-media-holdings-john-c-malone.html

 


iViewit FBI and SEC Complaint
iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

iViewit Motion to Rehear Naming Popehat.com, ((((REDACTED)))) and More.

iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20130512%20FINAL%20Motion%20to%20Rehear%20and%20Reopen%20Obstruction%20of%20Justice165555%20WITH%20EXHIBITS.pdf

To Research More on the iViewit Story

Videos on iViewit

youtube.com/watch?v=JFXvG_-c55A&list=PLGsjpjTOWjkSlB2g13z7pEHKCNwaayRWc

eliotbernstein.com/

deniedpatent.com/

iviewit.tv/

Crystal Cox Statement discussing Judges, Attorneys and Media conspiring to Silence her 

docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit

Here is Kenneth P. White's Bio, so you know who to complain to. Note that the Free Speech Coalition connections don't seem to be displayed. 

brownwhitelaw.com/attorneys/kwhite.html

Respond to this report!
What's this?

Kenneth White Says this in his Rebuttal;

"WIPO agreed, and awarded Marc several domain names that used his name in a confusing and non-satirical manner, and in the process noted that Cox registered the domains fraudulently to commit extortion:

 

In any event, for purposes of the Policy the Panel finds the Respondent’s intention, as reflected by the record, was never to solely provide, through her websites, speech critical of the Complainant. Rather, her objective in both registering and using the disputed names was apparently to engage in a rather sinister and tenacious scheme to extort money from the Complainant. Specifically, the Respondent first posted negative and false commentary on her websites that was intentionally calculated to injure the Complainant’s on-line reputation and disrupt the Complainant’s business conducted through his law firm. Thereafter, the Respondent used those sites in a manner that apparently optimized their ranking on the Google search engine in order to increase their visibility and prominence on search results yielded through a Google search of the Complainant, thus likely exacerbating the injury caused to the Complainant. Once all this occurred, the Respondent then offered her reputational management services to the Complainant through which, for a considerable fee, she would remediate the Complainant’s on-line reputation by eliminating all the negative and false commentary of her own making and presumably also ceasing her use of the disputed domain names. Basically, for a price, she would undo the injury to the Complainant for which she was responsible for having created in the first place. This egregious conduct clearly constitutes bad faith under the Policy."

 

WIPO named the same David Carr New York Times article and Marc Randazza's words as some sort of factual evidence the Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein were guilty of Extortion. This is unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional. WIPO's Francis Gurry and Edward Kwakwa were made aware via phone call, emails and legal action. And they have done nothing to correct the defamation and blatant attack in the WIPO Ruling published wordl wide. 

WIPO fraudulent acted against Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein and has yet to take responsibility.

WIPO is not Neutral, Not Ethical and creates victims by letting attorneys such as ((((REDACTED)))) and his INTA, WIPO panelist friend Peter L. Michaelson use WIPO as their personal judge and jury to widely publish unfounded, non fact checked accusations of extortion. 

 

Crystal Cox Sues WIPO, New Jersey, Peter L. Michaelson

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiYW13WDB0amctTDA/edit

Eliot Bernstein, iViewit also named in WIPO Complaint to harass and Defame him. See here the iViewit, Eliot Bernstein filing to re-open the iViewit Civil Lawsuit, naming iViewit, ((((REDACTED)))) , WIPO, Peter Michaelson and more.

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20130512%20FINAL%20Motion%20to%20Rehear%20and%20Reopen%20Obstruction%20of%20Justice165555%20WITH%20EXHIBITS.pdf

WIPO, Peter L. Michaelson, ((((REDACTED)))) , Francis Gurry WIPO and Edward Kwakwa WIPO have knowingly used WIPO's world publication power to defame, harass and attack iViewit inventor Eliot Bernstein and the blogger reporting on the iViewit story, Crystal Cox.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#16 Consumer Comment

Tracy Coenan, ((((REDACTED)))) , and Ken White of Brown, White and Newhouse CENSOR Crystal Cox

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

A Blog regarding legal action filed by Crystal Cox against Tracy Coenan, ((((REDACTED)))) , and Ken White, has been removed from Google.

 

http://plaintiffcox.blogspot.com/

Blog Removed

 

Here is an archive of the blog

https://web.archive.org/web/20130611040625/http://plaintiffcox.blogspot.com

 

and 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiUEQtUHdSeXhyVGM/edit?usp=sharing

 

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#17 Consumer Comment

Crystal Cox Blogger; Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations by Overreaching Judges. Motion Filed to Reconsider, Redact, Rehear

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

Blogger Crystal Cox, through her attorney Eugene Volokh, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor files a motion requesting the court to withhold allegations of Cox having a history of seeking a payoff in exchange for retraction.

Defendant Blogger Crystal Cox, "respectfully request that the Court amend its 
opinion to withhold the sentence that now says, 

"Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seek-
ing payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth 
Survives Free Speech, N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. "


A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” could be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court. But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process.

The claims in the columnist’s assertion are
 neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201. 


Moreover, while the New York Times column does discuss Cox’s offering her consulting services to appellees in this case, it does not make any such allegations about other cases. There thus seems to be no “history” of “seeking payoffs” claimed in the article. The “history” that the column is positing
appears to be only a history of Cox’s “making similar allegations.”

Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, some media outlets have not only repeated this sentence, but even omitted the term “apparently” in doing so.

The widely reprinted Reuters wire service, for instance, wrote,

According to the court’s opinion, Cox has a history of making allega-
tions of fraud and other illegal activities “and seeking payoffs in ex-
change for retraction.” 

Dan Levine, Blogger Gets Same Speech Protections as Traditional Press:

U.S. Court, Reuters, Jan. 17, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/
17/us-usa-blogger-ruling-idUSBREA0G1HI20140117; see also, e.g., http://
www.nbcnews.com/id/54102454/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_
gadgets/ (NBC News republication of the Reuters article).

Of course, some such media omissions of qualifiers (such as “apparently”) are inevitable.
Still, they highlight the fact that, when a statement is made in a Court of Appeals
opinion—with the authority such opinions possess—journalists might
perceive the statement as a factual finding, and not just a report of what a 
newspaper column has alleged. 

Judicial opinions are perceived as extraordinarily reliable sources of information.

This reliability stems from the assumption that statements in the opinion, especially
statements that allege misconduct, generally rest on adjudicated facts. Because of this,
Cox respectfully requests that this particular allegation, which relies solely on a claim 
made in a newspaper column, be redacted from the opinion."

Source; Ninth Circuit Appellate Case: 12-35238 01/31/2014 ID: 8961401 Docket Entry: 48, Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox, Motion to Rehear.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#18 Author of original report

Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations; Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK Against Extortion Allegations in Judicial Ruling

AUTHOR: CrystalCox - ()

Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK, against Federal Appellate Judges Stating;

“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction”

 
 

Cox has not been found guilty by a court of law, had a formal investigation nor any kind of due process on extortion allegations. Therefore an esteemed, highly "reliable source" such as a 3 Judges on an Appellate Panel, should not make allegations of speculated crimes of the Defendant, especially quoting a New York Times journalist as the source of said opinion, or allegations.


I have NO ISSUE with those Speaking Critical of Me, that is your Constitutional Right.

I do not care about being personally Criticized, 
I care about
 Judges obeying the Law and obeying the 
Constitution of the United States of Amerca. 


It is one thing for a journalist and a blogger to have equal rights in reporting the news, this is important. However when corruption stories are told or "broke" by these outlets, the authorities then need to perform a formal investigation before a judicial ruling makes those same allegations, as a MATTER OF LAW and Legal Precedent.

 

I Don't Care Who Likes Me and Who Does Not. 


I care about our Judges obeying the Law, 
and Respecting our Constitutional Rights.

Speak Critical of me If You must, oh well. I need no support from the masses. This is a Spiritual mission for me. And I will not be silent as to this matter. If I am silent then all anti-corruption bloggers are easily silenced by overreaching Judicial Rulings that accuse them of bad or illegal behavior as a matter of law, in a court of law and with no judicial process, due process, in a court of law. And do so, seemingly, to cover up the very corruption in which those anti-corruption bloggers are exposing in the first place.

Crystal Cox via her attorney Eugene Volokh, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor filed a Motion to Rehear / A motion to REDACT the allegations against Cox that are hearsay and rumor maliciously reported by New York Times Journalist David Carr, and all who have carried out this rumor as evidence in articles and a court of law such as Kenneth P. White of Brown, White and Newhouse ( a Free Speech Coalition Attorney) and Marc Randazza in the Lawsuit ((((REDACTED)))) v. Cox.

Note that the Free Speech Coalition is the Adult Entertainment Trade Association. And is connected to prositution in porn, human trafficking and has recently been connected to supporting pedophiles. Click Here to Read More on that
randazzanews.com/?p=37 .

Ken White of Brown, White and Newhouse is part of gang stalking attorneys who harass, defame, torment and threaten those within the porn industry who are exposing organized crime and the attorneys who protect them such as Ken White and Marc Randazza. 


More on the Free Speech Coalition and ((((REDACTED))))

((((REDACTED))))

 

Shelley Lubben on Free Speech Coalition and those connected to ((((REDACTED)))) and Ken White of Popehat.com
youtube.com/watch?v=MtFC-NtR494&list=UUcAGIt2_ACffHyVlkAaPejQ

Lawyers, Judges, and Controlled Media work together to control the outcome of legal cases, to push litigants to settlements, to suppress stories of corruption, and to silence whistleblowers.

And they make independent news outlets, bloggers, whistle blowers, and citizen journalist’s lives, assets, friends, family, quality of life, the collateral damages of their agenda. Ken White of Brown, White and Newhouse and ((((REDACTED)))) are part of these gang stalking attorneys that abuse the court process to bully people into silence.

Crystal Cox, through her UCLA Law Professor Attorney filed a motion that makes it clear, it is unacceptable for judges to accuse people of crimes in higher court judicial rulings, when they have not been given due process, as a matter of law and constitutional rights.

Ken White of Popehat.com, Brown White and Newhouse law firm, is an attorney, and should have a hire standard in "fact checking" then, even journalists and bloggers who may not be experts in law. Dig Deep folks and find out the Truth about Ken White.

To Read the Motion to Rehear; Click Below

docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit

Eugene Volokh

A Few Quotes from Eugene Volokh's Motion to Rehear;

"A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” might be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court. 

But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the civil justice process. The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201.

Moreover, while the New York Times article does discuss Cox’s offering her consulting services to appellees in this case, it does not make any such allegations about other cases.

There thus seems to be no “history” of seeking money claimed in the article. The “history” that the column is positing appears to be only a history of Cox’s “making similar allegations.”

 
Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, some media outlets have not only repeated this sentence, but even omitted the term “apparently” in doing so.


The widely reprinted Reuters wire service, for instance, wrote, According to the court’s opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities “and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”

Dan Levine, Blogger Gets Same Speech Protections as Traditional Press: U.S. Court, Reuters, Jan. 17, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/‌17/‌us-usa-blogger-ruling-idUSBREA0G1HI20140117; see also, e.g., http://‌www.‌nbcnews.com/id/54102454/ns/technology_and_science-tech_‌and_‌gadgets/ (NBC News republication of the Reuters article).

Of course, some such media misstatements are inevitable. Still, they highlight the fact that, when a statement is made in a Court of Appeals opinion—with the authority such opinions possess—journalists might perceive the statement as a factual finding, and not just a report of what a newspaper column has alleged.

Judicial opinions are perceived as extraordinarily reliable sources of information.


This reliability stems from the assumption that statements in the opinion, especially statements that allege misconduct, generally rest on adjudicated facts.


Because of this, Cox respectfully requests that this particular allegation, which rests solely on a claim made in a newspaper column, be redacted from the opinion."

Link to "Motion to Rehear" Filed by Eugene Volokh 
drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit?usp=sharing

 
Crystal L. Cox, Online Statement regarding and in support of the Motion to Rehear, to Clarify or Redact Courts statement, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction” and the surrounding media and corruption.

Click Below

docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit

Extortion was not part of the Lower Court Case, nor "of record". It has NO business in a Ninth Circuit Appellate Ruling when it was not a factor of the case, whatsoever.
 
This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road Folks. 
 
Crystal Cox has NEVER alleged criminal activity without documents, interviews, court hearings, court motions, and lot's of documented evidence posted on her blogs and linking to the source of that information. 
 
Yes, I cuss, yes I have my own style. NO I have not accused the innocent of "bad behavior" EVER. And I have never sought a pay off to retract any allegations nor will I ever. 
 
The goal, the mission per say, is to get criminal investigations and to give a voice to the victims of corrupt attorneys, judges, commissioners, corporations and corruption as a whole, that have documents of proof. Not to accuse innocents and ask for money. That is a LIE painted out by those who wish to silence me, and discredit the stories in which I am trying to draw attention to. 
 
If you want to believe your favorite blogger or big media newspaper, go ahead, that is your free will and constitutional right.  However, if you really are a journalist, a researcher, and an Investigative Blogger then do your homework. Investigate the allegations I have posted against hundreds over the last 10 years. Investigate the entire Summit Bankruptcy case and make up your own mind. And investigate the extortion allegations, find factual evidence in all of this, DO NOT simply believe Forbes, the New York Times or in this case an overreaching Judicial Ruling that gives Equality to blogger while at the same time using a New York Times article to discredit, slander and accuse the blogger of criminal activiity.
 
I am asking for a retraction, as a matter of law and constitutional rights of ALL who expose corruption and are often put under extreme prejudice and duress by the very legal system they are claiming is corrupt in some way. 
 
 
I allege crimes that I truly have researched and truly do believe have been committed. And I do NOT ask for a payoff to retract those allegations that I 100% believe to be true. For over 9 years now, I have studied  inside tips,documents, court cases, videos, emails, hearings, and I have not alleged criminal activity that has nothing to back it up, NOT EVER. 
 
Nor have I accused people of crimes with nothing to go on at all. And CERTAINLY I have not give my life to exposing crime in order to seek a measly $2500 a month pay off to extort or blackmail the criminal (bad guy) I am earnestly trying to expose and get justice for their victims.  An email during a legal battle, sent in my Pro Se capacity as a settlement offer, is called extortion by the masses and is certainly NOT evidence against me, that is based in any kind of fact.
 
 
I have dedicated my life to this. I am penniless, live in Church housing and eat due to the generosity of the Church. I made this stand to fight for the victims of corruption and give power to the anti-corruption bloggers exposing corruption. To me this is a basic human right, a civil right and absolutely necessary in a truly Free society striving for Justice for All. 
 
I have given to much, witnessed so much suffering. And at this point I do not intend to let the lie stand in place of the Truth, to the best of my ability.
 
These crimes are happening, these victims, these stories are real, and I have not simply been half hazardly alleging or accusing innocent "victims. 
 
Asking for a Ninth Circuit Redaction is based in a Matter of Law and Constitutional Rights plain and simple. I ask this for the rights of all Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blowers, and Anti-Corruption Bloggers out there trying to expose corruption and being shut down by lawyers, judges and the judicial process as a whole.
 
If the Ninth Circuit Judges DENY this request for true equality as Matter of Law and Constitutional Rights, then they do. However, I have at least asked the question. And we will soon know if it is a Ninth Circuit Ruling / Judicial Opinion that the New York Times is FACT, is documented evidence that can be used against all people as a matter of LAW, with no fact checking by the Ninth Circuit as to the allegations made by a New York Times reporter.
 
If the Ninth Circuit Appellate court gives the New York Times this kind of power as a Matter of LAW and Constitutional Rights, then what good is this amazing ruling that levels the playing field for all Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blowers, and Anti-Corruption Bloggers, equal to that of the New York Times, Forbes, USA Today, Reuters and other high powered corporate media outlets.
 
If the Ninth Circuit Judges say its lawful for Federal Judges to accuse people of crimes in a Judicial Ruling, as a Matter of LAW, based on the New York Times saying so, well there you have it, then its LAW.

For More on the Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal
ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/
 
For mor on Crystal Cox Blogger, the Crystal Cox Case
crystalcoxcase.com/

One of Crystal Cox's Lawsuits naming Ken White of Popehat.com
Crystal Cox v. Kashmir Hill of Forbes, Kenneth White of Brown White and Newhouse and the Free Speech Coaltion and others in co-conspiracy.

ia601701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.1.0.pdf
 
Crystal Cox RICO Filing naming Marc Randazza, Ken White, Free Speech Coalition and More
docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiVENkWDdpajNOV2c/edit

on my Case Filings

plaintiffcox.blogspot.com/
 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#19 Consumer Comment

Free Speech Attorney ((((REDACTED)))) Has Blog Removed that talked About Crystal Cox's Lawsuit Against Him

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

 

Here is the Page Removal Notice

docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiLTRhNXk4dk5TRXc/edit

 

This was the blog

coxvrandazza.blogspot.com/

 

Here is Archives of the Site

drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiZVp5VTQyTzRBSVk/edit?usp=sharing

 

Here is the Lawsuit ((((REDACTED)))) is Despertly trying to hide in the search engines

docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiR0J5bFFzNkJGVEU/edit

 

More on this Topic

investigativeblogger.blogspot.com/2014/01/first-amendment-attorney-marc-randazza.html

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#20 Consumer Comment

Attorney ((((REDACTED)))) CONTROL Facebook; ((((REDACTED)))) CENSORS Crystal Cox Again and Violates My First Amendment Rights in the Process

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

First Amendment, Porn Attorney ((((REDACTED)))), Porn Attorney, CONTROLS the Courts and they in turn control GOOGLE and Facebook. ((((REDACTED)))) continues to CENSOR Crystal Cox and shut down sits that speak critical of him. Meanwhile he and his buddies have massive hate online about Crystal Cox, and have endangered her life for over a year.

((((REDACTED)))) is Above the Law, Controls the Courts and abuses his power as an attorney. I have sued him, told the courts and continue to seek justice and am denied by those who protect organized crime and illegal prostitution rings in the porn industry.

Documents to the latest Facebook page ((((REDACTED)))) has BANNED from the Internet because its in the top 10 search and speaks critical of him personally.

http://www.ethicscomplaint.com/2014/01/banned-from-my-own-facebook-wall-by.html

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#21 Consumer Comment

Kashmir Hill Forbes CENSORS Crystal Cox

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

Blog CoxvHill.blogspot.com REMOVED;

see link below for removal 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiMUE0WGwwbWh0OHM/edit?usp=sharing

 

So Here is a Permanent Record of my Lawsuit Attempting to GET JUSTICE.

Cox v. Hill Docket
http://ia801701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.docket.html

 

Cox v. Hill Complaint
http://ia601701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.1.0.pdf

 

Note, Kashmir Hill Forbes had this removed from Google, Censored me, Violated my First Amendment Rights, after I posted a link to the blog here on this Rip Off Report.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#22 Consumer Comment

((((REDACTED)))) Continues to CENSOR Me, Now Facebook Page set to Shut Down

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

Facebook Page in top ten search for "((((REDACTED))))" set to shut down because ((((REDACTED)))) Labeled it a hate site, simply because it reviews him, speaks critical of him and exposes him.

((((REDACTED))))

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#23 Consumer Comment

First Amendment Rights Attorney ((((REDACTED)))) gets Google to Shut down blog that Speaks Critical of Him.

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

 

Can You Believe a First Amendment Rights Attorney Got a Blog Shut Down Just Because it Speaks Critical of Him?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <support@blogger.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:58 PM
Subject: Blogger blog takedown notification - http://lyingtrolllegalgroupsucks.blogspot.com/
To: (((redacted)))
Cc: blogger-dmca-notification@google.com



Hello,

We'd like to inform you that we've received a court order regarding your blog http://lyingtrolllegalgroupsucks.blogspot.com/. In accordance with the terms of the court order, we have removed content previously located at:
http://lyingtrolllegalgroupsucks.blogspot.com/

A copy of the court order we received is attached. Thank you for your understanding.
 
Here is an Archive of the BLOG ((((REDACTED)))) had Removed from ONLINE, and clearly violates my First Amendment Rights to Free Speech
Respond to this report!
What's this?

 

Kashmir Hill of Forbes used the high profile name of Forbes to paint blogger Crystal Cox in false light, deliberately, to a world wide audience. The Obsidian v. Cox case threatens the long standing MONOPOLY in which Big Media such as Forbes has on Free Speech and on what is accepted in the eyes of society and our judicial system as "real news"; news that is protected by laws such as the Shield Law, Retraction Laws, and the First Amendment. 

 The Crystal Cox case makes a powerful stand in the courts for the rights of ALL citizen journalists, investigative bloggers, and whistle blowers worldwide, and especially the United States. The Crystal Cox Case is a game changer and makes a firm stand that we are ALL Journalist NOW, and when we are reporting on our experience, what we research or know as individuals out here in the real world is real "news", and should be treated as such in a court of law. 

Blogs are, in a big way, News by the People for the People, and bloggers reporting on a story should have the same rights in our courts under the laws and the constitution, as traditional journalists and institutional press. 

There is no special license required to be "Media", a medium of communication, or a Journalist, anyone can work for, or start a local or national newspaper. Crystal Cox chose blogs as her Medium of Communication to the world over the outdated, old news, archaic print news.

Journalists, such as Forbes Kashmir Hill should not have journalistic privilege and special rights in the courts to defame, ruin lives, lie about people and use the power of Forbes to carry out agendas, and retaliation for who she likes best or believe more, regardless of facts. 

Crystal Cox had worldwide support in her stand for these now infamous Free Speech Rights until Kashmir Hill of Forbes and other Co-Conspirators defamed Crystal Cox, and distorted the facts and the whole nature of the Obsidian v. Cox lawsuit. As well as twisted the intention, mission, and motive of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox and her hundreds of blogs exposing corruption over the last decade. 

In December of 2011, just after the $2.5 Million dollar verdict against Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox that ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to Blogger Crystal Cox, nor does Shield Laws, Anti-Slapp Laws or Retraction Laws; Kashmir Hill, Forbes Journalist interviewed Plaintiff Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group regarding the Obsidian v. Cox case. Kashmir Hill, to this day, has never spoke with or interviewed Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox. 

Kashmir Hill reported that Crystal Cox had been under investigation by the Oregon Attorney General and that when this did not work, Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group then got their attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp law firm to sue Crystal Cox. A quick Freedom of Information request to the Oregon Attorney General says that Crystal Cox did not have so much as a consumer complaint, and certainly NOT a criminal complaint of any kind. Kaskmir Hill did not BOTHER this quick check and instead she chose to publicly defame, state with malice, that Crystal Cox had been under investigation, this is against the law, however, Forbes and Kashmir Hill seems to have special journalistic privileges to defame, lie about, ruin the life of whom ever they choose with total disregard to the rights of those they are reporting on or the facts of the matter at hand.

This first article was riddled with wrong information, as you see in the link below in the lawsuit Crystal Cox filed against Forbes.

http://ia801701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.1.0.pdf

Later in December of 2011, Kashmir Hill's buddy ((((REDACTED)))) was acting as my, Crystal Cox's, lawyer. Kashmir Hill knew ((((REDACTED)))) from when she worked at "AboveTheLaw.com", Breaking Media, Inc. How well she knew him, knows him, or their friendship, business connection I do not know in detail.

Shortly after ((((REDACTED)))) told members of the First Amendment Bar that he represented Crystal Cox, and was negotiating some deal with Plaintiff Obsidian Finance Group, and their attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp, a deal in which Crystal Cox, the client, had no knowledge of, Crystal Cox FIRED ((((REDACTED)))), more on that story at the ((((REDACTED))))Rip Off Report Below

((((REDACTED))))

After this, Kashmir Hill, Forbes Journalist interviewed First Amendment Attorney ((((REDACTED)))) and still did not contact Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, and the next thing we see is "Media", Forbes, defaming, attacking, and flat our maliciously lying about Crystal Cox. Forbes Journalist Kashmir Hill painted Crystal Cox out to be an Extortionist, a Criminal and someone who attacked a 3 year old, the child of attorney ((((REDACTED)))). When in Truth, Crystal Cox is an Anti-Corruption blogger and was exposing corruption in the courts and was NOT guilty of, under investigation for, on trial for, or participating in any criminal activity, extortion or "attacks" on a child in any way.

Kashmir Hill, Reporter, even made this poor child collateral damage in her attack on me, Crystal Cox, by posting her photo, and flat out lied about Crystal Cox writing online about this child, as Crystal Cox never did that and Kashmir Hill simply listened to ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))), Cox's former attorney and did not fact checking what so ever. 

The entire WORLD picked up Forbes articles and though Kashmir Hill of Forbes did no fact checking, did not interview Crystal Cox, and knowingly published false information which clearly makes Forbes and Kashmir Hill liable under defamation law, well she is protected by the courts.

So far all of these folks are "Above the Law". And though it is clear that Kevin Padrick, ((((REDACTED)))) and Kashmir Hill maliciously DEFAMED blogger Crystal Cox after she already had a $2.5 million dollar judgement, they remain to be protected by the courts in which do not give equal rights to bloggers and journalists.

Here is the Judicial Ruling that Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Anti-SLAPP Laws and EVEN the First Amendment Does not apply to  Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox.

"OPINION: Based on the evidence presented at the time of trial, I conclude that plaintiffs are not public figures, defendant is not "media," and the statements at issue were not made on an issue of public concern. Thus, there are no First Amendment implications. Defendant's other defenses of absolute privilege, Oregon's Shield Law, Oregon's Anti-SLAPP statute, and Oregon's retraction statutes, are not applicable. See 13-page opinion attached. Signed on 11/30/2011 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. Copy of opinion mailed and emailed to defendant."

Full Judicial Order, Click Below

http://ia700403.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.ord.101036/gov.uscourts.ord.101036.95.0.pdf

 

Research Links on Crystal Cox fighting Back against Forbes, Kashmir Hill

http://coxvhill.blogspot.com/2013/05/investigative-blogger-crystal-cox-files.html

http://ia801701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.1.0.pdf

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiME55Ynk2VnE2anM/edit


More on the Crystal Cox Case

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Obsidian-Finance-Group-LLC-v-Crystal-Cox-Case-Archives/166887266854158

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ninth-Circuit-Crystal-Cox/1427423480823829?ref=stream

http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/

 

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC et al v. Cox Docket

http://ia600403.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.ord.101036/gov.uscourts.ord.101036.docket.html

 

Hearing Day Before Trial

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/117804185/Obsidian-Finance-Group-Vs-Crystal-Cox-Hearing-Day-Before-Trial

 

Trial Transcripts

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/117800653/Obsidian-V-Cox-Trial-Transcripts

  

Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal Motions 

 

Eugene Volokh, Crystal L. Cox Appeal. Obsidian Vs. Cox Appeal Opening Brief

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/132977266/Eugene-Volokh-Crystal-L-Cox-Appeal-Obsidian-Vs-Cox-Appeal-Opening-Brief

 

Obsidian Finance Group LLC V. Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Reply / Response Brief
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/144314839/Obsidian-Finance-Group-LLC-V-Crystal-Cox-Eugene-Volokh-Reply--Response-Brief

 

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al., v. Crystal Cox,

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL 

http://www.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/2012-10-17-obsidian-finance-group-llc-et-al-v-crystal-cox-.pdf

 

ScotusBlog.com Amicus Brief Regarding Obsidian Vs. Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/133576894/ScotusBlogcom-Amicus-Brief-Regarding-Obsidian-Vs-Cox-Appeal

 

 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CRYSTAL COX. 

http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2012-01-11-EFF%20Amicus%20in%20Support%20of%20Cox%20Motion%20for%20New%20Trial.pdf

Audio of Ninth Circuit Hearing,

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000011812

Appeal Docket

http://ia601901.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.ca9.12-35319/gov.uscourts.ca9.12-35319.docket.html

 

Overview of Case by Digital Media Law

http://www.dmlp.org/threats/obsidian-finance-group-v-cox

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#25 Author of original report

((((REDACTED)))) , Peter L. Michaelson, Tonkon Torp David Aman, Kashmir Hill Forbes, WIPO and the Free Speech Case of Blogger Crystal Cox.

AUTHOR: CrystalCox - ()

Attorney ((((REDACTED)))) defamed me with "actual malice". ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) gang stalked me, endangered my life, threatened me, sued me, perjured court documents against me, harassed witnesses in my cases, used big media connections such as Forbes and NPR to paint me in false light and maliciously lie about me.

Lawyer ((((REDACTED)))) used privileged information, my files, my strategy and information gained acting as he would be my attorney to later harm me, defame me, attempt to sabotage my case and sell off my appeal rights and to create a public flogging of my name, my case, my purpose and my life. 

 

((((REDACTED)))) lied in federal court documents, lied in WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization complaints about me, accused me of criminal activity without filing a criminal complaint and allowing me due process of law.

((((REDACTED)))) used his power and influence over media and the courts to ruin my life, my business, endanger me, outcast me, paint me in false light and consume my quality of life by putting me under daily, constant duress. 

 

((((REDACTED))))and WIPO conspirator Peter Michaelson of the INTA and ADR Chambers, LLC in Rumson, New Jersey who was the sole WIPO panelist in ((((REDACTED)))) case against me, Crystal Cox, not only conspired to rule against me to suppress my free speech, but they also used the power of WIPO, and it's international publications to flat out accuse me of being a criminal, all this without filing a criminal complaint so that I could have due process of law. 

 

((((REDACTED)))), First Amendment Bar attorney and ADR Chambers Peter L. Michaelson simply said GUILTY and published this defamation knowingly, with actual malice, which sure seems like criminal defamation to me, and to this day they continue to be protected by the courts and are above the law. They are not, as of yet, held accountable for the damage they have done to my life, my business and all those connected to me.

 

Not only did Peter L. Michaelson Lawyer, INTA and ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) do this to me, but they also named Eliot Bernstein, who was simply one of the thousands whom I have written stories about, reported on, over the last decade. 


WIPO and many other companies and individuals connected to ((((REDACTED)))) and the porn industry of which he stands, are liable for BILLIONS in the Eliot Bernstein / iViewit Technology theft. They threw this Inventor into my case, simply to defame him, try and discredit his case, attempt to affect RICO and Racketeering complaints and they used WIPO and fraud on the courts to defame, harass, and discredit this already victim of  fraud, harassment, murder attempt and a life of huge hardship over a multi-trillion dollar video technology of which Eliot Bernstein and his company iViewit were never paid. 

 

For more on the iViewit technologly theft worth millions check out the links below

 

Latest motion to reOpen case, naming ((((REDACTED)))), Peter L. Michaelson around bottom of page 59. 

iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20130512%20FINAL%20Motion%20to%20Rehear%20and%20Reopen%20Obstruction%20of%20Justice165555%20WITH%20EXHIBITS.pdf

 

 Docket for the above connected case

ia600200.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.317945/gov.uscourts.nysd.317945.docket.html

  

((((REDACTED))))of ((((REDACTED)))) spoke with me first in December of 2011 just after my case Obsidian v. Cox was over with a VERDICT of $2.5 Million Dollar judgement against me, personally and that the First Amendment did not apply to me, I was ruled NOT to be "a medium of communication" as a blogger with over 400 blogs at the time, and it was RULED that the Oregon Shield Laws and Oregon Retraction laws did not apply to me because Judge Marco Hernandez ruled that I as not a "journalist" as a matter of law and that my hundreds of blogs and thousands of posts over a decade was not MEDIA nor were they a "medium of communication". 

 

This, I continue to believe, was to protect corruption in Portland Oregon in which involved Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Perkins Coie Law Firm, Miller Nash Law FirmSussman Shank Law Firm, Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp Michael Dunn, Judge Randall Dunn, Judge Michael C. Sullivan, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Tonkon Torp Lawyers Leon Simson and David Aman, Tom Stilley of Sussman Shank Law Firm, Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie, Jeanette L. Thomas, Bend Oregon DA Patrick Flaherty,

Jim Diegel of Sageview, St. Charles, Cascade Health, Obsidian Finance Group and former Cascade Health Board member Patricia Whittington, Dr. Jeffrey Gray, Dr. Benjamin Ray Eliason, Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie Law Firm, Pamela Griffith U.S. Trustee, Kevin D. Padrick Obsidian Finance Group Bankrutpcy APPOINTED Trustee, M. Vivienne Popperl attorney for U.S Trustee's Office and especially friend of Judge Marco Hernandez, Judge Michael Simon, who is a Portland power player, along with his wife Suzanne Bonamici.

 

Judge Michael Simon made a whole lot of money in the Summit Bankruptcy that Crystal Cox was reporting on for 3 years before Obsidian Finance Group and Tonkon Torp law firm sued her.  

 

Judge Marco Hernandez and Judge Michael Simon were NOT federal judges in PORTLAND until after the Crystal Cox Case was filed.

 

Judge Michael Simon especially made large amounts of money with lawsuits against Umpqua bank, working closely with Kevin Padrick Bankruptcy Trustee and co-owner of Obsidian Finance Group.

 

This was all before Judge Michael Simon became a federal judge in Portland Oregon at the same time that Judge Marco Hernandez did. Before this Michael Simon was with Perkin Coie Law Firm and was PART of the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy that Blogger Crystal Cox was reporting on for the 3 years prior to being sued for 10 million dollars by the bankruptcy trustee, Kevin D. Padrick and his lawyer David Aman who were BOTH part of the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy proceedings.  Michael Simon made a lot of money in the Umpqua bank lawsuits in that case and certainly does not want the DETAIL to all unravel by some blogger, who is alleged NOT a Journalist, as a matter of LAW.

 

Judge Michael Simon and his wife Suzanne Bonamici are well known to be a POWER TEAM in the politics and high finance communities of Portland Oregon.  

 

Suzanne Bonamici is a U.S. House of Representative from Oregon's 1st District and Suzanne Bonamici is a former Member of the Oregon Senate from the 17th district and Member of the Oregon House of Representatives.

 

I, investigative Blogger Crystal Cox still believe this all affected the outcome of my case and became the Collateral Damage to the First Amendment, Free Speech rights of all Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blowers, Anti-Corruption Blogger and all Free Press in New Media.

 

In that first phone call with attorney ((((REDACTED)))), he told me that he use to work for big media but much prefers bloggers and porn companies as big media has a monopoly on free speech and he did not want to do as they were telling him to do. ((((REDACTED)))) claimed that he believed in the free speech rights of bloggers such as me. He also talked about, well laughed at Obsidian Finance Group for suing me for 10 Million and getting a 2.5 Million dollar judgement, how would they collect? Yet a year later he sued me for around 3 Million himself, yes, he sued a woman he claimed to represent in a $2.5 million dollar appeal of a free speech case that sets a one of a kind precedent in new media legal cases forever more.

 

After this call, getting all my files, my strategy, and inside information about me,  first amendment lawyer ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) contacted Tonkon Torp Lawyer David Aman, opposing counseling representing Kevin D. Padrick, David Brown and Obsidian Finance Group and made some deal that would make the case go away, would change how the verdict read on the docket; some motion or change somehow that would ensure that my case did not get an appeal and did not affect the BILLIONAIRES in the porn industry nor the bloggers that ((((REDACTED)))), first amendment bar attorney himself represented or would represent in the future. This private deal negotiated by ((((REDACTED)))), acting as my attorney never was disclosed to me by ((((REDACTED)))), nor were the details ever told to me. 

 

I found out by another attorney in the first amendment bar that ((((REDACTED))))had told about this alleged deal he was working out "for me", allegedly the client, of which I knew NOTHING about.

 

((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) told members of the First Amendment Bar that he represented me and was in negotiations regarding my Ninth Circuit Appeal Case, Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox. This insured that no other attorney contacted me, as they did not want to step on the toes of ((((REDACTED)))), First Amendment Attorney. 

Meanwhile, ((((REDACTED)))) had not signed a contract with me, had not discussed what deal he was presenting to opposing counsel on my behalf and the clock was ticking on my deadline to file an appeal. I fully believe ((((REDACTED)))) was chasing off other attorneys and letting the clock tick, so that he could work whatever deal he had planned, with no chance of me having another attorney nor filing an appeal myself because he was "my attorney".

 

What ((((REDACTED)))) did not know was that I, Crystal Cox had already spoke to another attorney before all this on a possible future representation that had not been affirmed yet. Luckily this attorney let me know that ((((REDACTED)))) claimed he was my attorney and was working a deal, and putting in time an effort on this matter, this case, this appeal.

 

Soon after this violation of my rights, I fired ((((REDACTED)))), and let him know FIRMLY, that he did not represent me. In the meantime, I bought ((((REDACTED)))) as one of the thousands of domain names I had bought over the years to continue my reporting on my case and related free speech issues.

 

I never posted anything negative on ((((REDACTED)))) at that time and I fully believed him when he said no hard feelings and wished me luck on my case and said to let him know if I need any help. So I asked him if he knew anyone needing PR as I was very good at it and seriously, desperately broke. On that same communication I told him I had bought ((((REDACTED)))) to do PR on my case and now that he would not be my attorney, I still planned to use the site for my case and first amendment issues but could also promote him if he wanted me to. He went into a RAGE, demanded I give him the name, said I had no right to own the name that apparently he never thought of buying and odd he had touted himself as a domain name lawyer and expert, and he also represented someone who owned the domain name GlenBeckRapedandMurderedaYoungGirlin1990.com and he won that case and seemed to think that it was fine to have the names of others in a domain name, but not for me. 

 

So, when I refused to give him the domain name, he began a campaign of hate, sabotage, defamation and retaliation. Starting with contacting opposing counsel David Aman of Tonkon Torp law firm again and this time offering to be deposed and state that I had extorted him, for the record. 

 

I am also under the understanding that lawyers ((((REDACTED)))) and David Aman spoke with Judge Marco Hernandez and convinced him that I, Crystal Cox had extorted them both. Next thing you know we see a federal judge, Judge Marco Hernandez accuse a blogger who was in a civil trial of a criminal act in a denial of a new trial of that civil trial. 

 

The New York Times and many others pick this up and WHAM, my own attorney has publicly, maliciously, with KNOWLEDGE of its non-fact defamed me and set me up for a lifetime of this criminal label. 

 

David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))), Two attorneys, officers of the court sworn to uphold law and ethics, and a federal judge accuse me of the crime of extortion yet file no criminal complaint, give me no attorney and allow me no due process what so ever. Hundreds of bloggers around the world pick up the story, as well as big and small media worldwide and I am tarnished for life as a CRIMINAL in a civil trial by the actions of a man that was acting as my attorney at one time.

 

I then used my online sites to report on my former attorney ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) in hopes to warn others and to expose what he had done to me, and the power and influence he has over the courts and media, this was in hopes to STOP him from creating future victims.

 

After this, ((((REDACTED))))of ((((REDACTED)))) continued his campaign against me, his former client. And he filed a lawsuit against me to suppress my speech and named iViewit inventor Eliot Bernstein as a defendant also.  ((((REDACTED)))) filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against me out of the District of Nevada for using his name in my domain names, blogs and online speech, speaking critical of him. After he filed the lawsuit, he did not BOTHER to serve me, he got his lawyer friends to post the legal case online and defame me, harass me and paint me out to be what he said I was, with NO fact what so ever. 

 

I contacted the Nevada Courts myself in order to be served via eMail so that I could respond to this case and expose ((((REDACTED))))and ((((REDACTED)))), his own law firm who represented him to sue me, Crystal L. Cox, his former client whom he BETRAYED.

 

Then ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) filed a motion, well he had his lawyer Ronald Green of his law firm ((((REDACTED)))) do it, anyway it was a motion called a Preliminary TRO, he was granted this motion and therefore allowed to seize my domain names, shut down sites and essentially attempt to put a gag order on me, his former client for exercising my rights to speak freely about him aKa my Free Speech Rights, my First Amendment Rights which he hypocritical pretends to love and legal protect but now, all the sudden does not LOVE the proverbial free speech because it speaks critical of him personal and exposes his bad, unethical and possibly corrupt actions, possible fraud on the courts and bad dangerous behavior.

 

So the Nevada courts and his buddy Judge Gloria Navarro not only granted ((((REDACTED)))) an unethical, unconstitutional TRO that shut down my free speech online, but Judge Gloria Navarro, in complete violation of my legal rights ordered that Godaddy, the registrar not simply lock the domain names until the dispute is over, but also allow ((((REDACTED)))) to change the server and redirect my PROPERTY to his Blog, and a page which hatefully defamed ME, the defendant in the case, his former client.

 

Keep in mind it was November of 2012 when my former alleged free speech rights attorney ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) sued me for millions for exercising my Free Speech Rights against him, and so this shut down my sites, my intellectual property, my online media and my FREE SPEECH in an instant and for well over a year now with NO DUE PROCESS or First Amendment adjudication. This also redirected all of my HIGH SEARCH ENGINE ranking for the name ((((REDACTED))))and ((((REDACTED)))) to a page on ((((REDACTED)))) blog TRASHING, defaming, attacking and painting me in false light. 

 

All this, even though ((((REDACTED)))) himself had previously state that preliminary TRO was unconstitutional, below are research Links on this.

 

Check out the bottom of page 3 of this one, ((((REDACTED)))) own case quote

docstoc.com/docs/142333607/REPLY-to-Response-to-MOTION-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order-and-MOTION-for-Preliminary-Injunction-filed-by-Defendant-Crystal-L-Cox-Document-30

 

stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/2013/01/unconstitutional-ex-parte-motion-for_23.html

 

Throughout the last 14 months and counting, ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) has filed motions to take my intellectual property, to silence me, to suppress me speech, to sanction me, to deem me a vexatious litigant, to take away my right to email him communications and to file electronically in this harassing Nevada SLAPP case filed to suppress my speech. 

 

In the above case I was DENIED the right to counter claim and I was forced by Judge Gloria Navarro to change my response and only address the issues she allowed me to address in my own defense, representing myself, pro se.

 

It is clear, as a matter of law that ((((REDACTED)))) is liable for his actions against me and I am legally allowed a counter complaint and it is clear that my ex-attorney ((((REDACTED)))) of ((((REDACTED)))) violated my constitutional rights, endangered me, defamed me, committed hate crimes against me, denied me due process, painted me in false light, stole my property and is clearly GUILTY of Malpractice in his representation of me. 

 

Thus far I have gotten no justice and continue to be sued, harassed and publicly defamed by ((((REDACTED)))) and his gang stalking attorney friends and media such as Kashmir Hill of ForbesTracy Coenen of the Fraud Files, Mark Bennett of Bennett and Bennett, PopeHat.com's Kenneth P. White of Brown White and Newhouse Law Firm, Eric Turkewitz of Turkewitz Law Firm, Bob Garfield of NPR and more high profile bloggers, legal bloggers, law firms, and media.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#26 Consumer Comment

((((REDACTED)))) named in RICO, Racketeering Lawsuit in MAJOR Technology Theft Case out of New York

AUTHOR: Crystal L. Cox - ()

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
X