Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Ya Ari Bass is EVIL and Ya is Connected to Randazza Legal Group

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Referring URL:
Host Name:cpe-108-184-219-62.socal.res.rr.comBrowser:Google Web Preview 
IP Address:108.184.219.62 — [Label IP Address]Operating System:Unknown
Location:Encino, California, United StatesResolution:1024x1024
Returning Visits:0Javascript:Enabled
Visit Length:Not ApplicableISP:Time Warner Cable

Navigation Path

DateTimeWebPage
7 Apr21:44:07

BUDDIES

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Search Referral:www.google.com/#3 (Keywords Unavailable) 
Host Name:nv-iptv-71-52-45-48.dhcp.centurylinkservices.netBrowser:Safari 7.0
IP Address:71.52.45.48 — [Label IP Address]Operating System:MacOSX
Location:Las Vegas, Nevada, United StatesResolution:1440x900
Returning Visits:0Javascript:Enabled
Visit Length:Not ApplicableISP:Centurylink

Navigation Path

DateTimeWebPage
  www.google.com/#3 (Keywords Unavailable) 
9 Apr16:31:24

Monday, January 27, 2014

A Bit on the importance of an IMPARTIAL Judge


"According to, Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law, Second Edition,
Charles Gardner Geyh, Associate Dean of Research, John F. Kimberling Professor of
Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, a Federal Judicial Center Publication;

"For centuries, impartiality has been a defining feature of the Anglo-American judge’s role in the
administration of justice

The reason is clear: in a constitutional order grounded in the rule of law, it is imperative that judges make decisions according to law, unclouded by personal bias or conflicts of interest.

Accordingly, upon ascending the bench, every federal judge takes an oath to
“faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties” of judicial office; and the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been
construed to guarantee litigants the right to a “neutral and detached,” or impartial, judge.

Moreover, in a democratic republic in which the legitimacy of government depends on the
consent and approval of the governed, public confidence in the administration of justice is
indispensable. 

It is not enough that judges be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges therefore admonishes judges to “act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary”
and to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities"

"When the impartiality of a judge is in doubt, the appropriate remedy is to disqualify that judge
from hearing further proceedings in the matter.

In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., a case concerning disqualification of a state supreme court justice, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that litigants have a due process right to an impartial judge, and that under circumstances in which judicial bias was probable, due process required disqualification. The Court noted, however, that disqualification rules may be and often are more rigorous than the Due Process Clause requires.

So it is with disqualification requirements for federal judges, which require disqualification when a judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned."

Disqualification Under 28 U.S.C. § 455

A. Overview

1. The text of § 455 The primary source of disqualification law in the federal judicial system is 28
U.S.C. § 455. It provides, in its entirety, as follows:

§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in
controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served
during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or
such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning
the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in
controversy;

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his
household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the
spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee
of a party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome
of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in
the proceeding.

(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a
reasonable effort to inform himself about the
personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in
his household. 10 Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law

(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases
shall have the meaning indicated:

(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other
stages of litigation;

(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law
system;

(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a
relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that
holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the
judge participates in the management of the fund;

(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a
“financial interest” in securities held by the organization;

(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a
mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the
organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the
interest;

(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest”
in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the
securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to
the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in
subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under
subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full
disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate
judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after
substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or
discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a
fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial
interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome),
disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or
minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the
grounds for the disqualification.
Sections (a) and (b) occupy the core of § 455 and should be read
together. The two sections divide the universe of disqualification into
two halves: the general, catch-all category of § 455(a), which requires
disqualification from any proceeding in which a judge’s “impartiality
might reasonably be questioned”; and a list of more specific grounds
for disqualification in § (b).
The remainder of § 455 is directed at implementing §§ (a) and (b):
• Section (c) admonishes judges to keep abreast of their financial
interests to ensure that they know when to disqualify themselves under § 455(b)(4).
• Section (d) defines terms employed in §§ (a) and (b).
• Section (e) provides parties with a limited opportunity to waive
disqualification otherwise required by the catch-all § (a)—
typically where the judge is poised to disqualify himself or herself sua sponte—but does not
permit the parties to waive disqualification required by the more specific provisions of § (b).
• Section (f) provides a limited opportunity for judges to avoid
the need to disqualify themselves for financial interest under
§ (b)(4) through divestiture.
2. Interpretive ground rules
a. Interpreting § 455(a) in relation to § 455(b)

As embodied in § 455, §§ (a) and (b) are conceptually separate.
Section (a) compels disqualification for the appearance of partiality, while
§ (b) “also” compels disqualification for bias, financial interest, and
other specific grounds. In contrast, the Model Code of Judicial Conduct—after which § 455 was
originally modeled—and the current Code of Conduct for United States Judges unify the two
halves conceptually by characterizing the specific grounds for disqualification as a nonexclusive
subset of circumstances in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
 For the most part, this may be a distinction without a difference—disqualification is required if
the specific or general provisions are triggered, regardless of whether the specific provisions are
characterized as a subset of or separate from the general.

On the other hand, by onceptualizing them separately, § 455 can require disqualification under specific circumstances enumerated in § (b) that might not reasonably be characterized as calling a judge’s impartiality into question under § (a). For example, § (b)(4) requires judges to disqualify themselves for financial interest
“however small,” which necessarily includes an interest so small that it could not reasonably call the judge’s impartiality into question.

Any circumstance in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under §
(a) requires disqualification, even if the circumstance is not enumerated in § 455(b).
 At the same time, when § 455(b) identifies a particular situation requiring disqualification, it will
tend to control any § 455

(a) analysis with respect to that specific situation. For example, §455(b)(5) requires disqualification when one of the parties is within the third degree of relationship to the judge. Consequently, a fourth-degree relationship to a party does not by itself create an appearance of partiality requiring disqualification under § 455(a)— although disqualification under § 455(a) might still be appropriate if, for example, the judge’s
personal relationship with the fourth-degree relative was so close as to call the judge’s impartiality into question. As the Supreme Court explained, “[s]ection 455(b)(5), which addresses
the matter of relationship specifically, ends the disability at the thirddegree of relationship, and
that should obviously govern for purposes of § 455(a) as well.”
The 1974 amendments to § 455, however, shifted the balance by requiring disqualification whenever a judge’s impartiality “might” reasonably be questioned, and the legislative history made clear that in revising the statute, Congress sought to end the “duty to sit".

“When Congress amended § 455(a), it made clear that judges should apply an objective
standard in determining whether to disqualify. A judge contemplating disqualification under §
455(a), then, should not ask whether he or she believes he or she is capable of impartially
presiding over the case.

 Rather, the question is whether a judge’s impartiality might be questioned from the perspective of a reasonable person,and every circuit has adopted some version of the “reasonable person” standard to answer this question.

 In the context of denying a motion for his disqualification from Cheney v. United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, Justice Scalia noted that this reasonable person is aware “of
all the surrounding facts and circumstances.” The Second Circuit has characterized the
reasonable person as an “objective, disinterested observer” who is privy to full knowledge of the
surrounding circumstances.”
...
“The question has sometimes arisen as to whether the standard for disqualification differs in a
bench trial where the judge’s role is even more pivotal than in a jury trial. In Alexander v.
Primerica Holdings, Inc., the court of appeals said: “We cannot overlook the fact that this is a
non-jury case, and that [the judge] will be deciding each and every substantive issue at trial . . . .
When the judge is the actual trier of fact, the need to presserve the appearance of impartiality is
especially pronounced”

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455, and upon examination of the record, I, Personally believe that Judge Martin Colin is NOT impartial and is violating the constitutional and lawful rights of the victims in this case.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

Crystal Cox did not use the un-Trademarked name Randazza as part of CYBER SQUATTING or Extortion.

Crystal Cox used the Blogs, Websites, Facebook sites and more to EXPOSE the overreaching, bullying, unethical, gang stalking, unconstitutional actions of a man who attacked her, tried to sabotage her, gang stalked her, lied to big media about her and put her under extreme duress. 

Crystal Cox fought back against Asshole Marc Randazza and he whines to the courts, wa wa she cybersquatted me.. BULLSHIT..


Oh No Call Marc Randazza to Destroy their Online Content Quickly


Now remember folks, the SOLUTION to "bad speech" is More Speech.. oh unless its about the MOUTHPIECE who loves to say that all the time. Marco Randazzle Master aKa woman hater, power hungry, human trafficking and pedophile supporting PRICK.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

EXPOSE Randazza Legal Group; J. Malcom DeVoy, Ronald Green and Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group PROTECT those involved in Human Trafficking and PORN directed at Children.

Randazza Legal Group protects Porn Industry Prostitution Rings, and the Porn Companies who target
children in "Porn Parody". It is Time to STAND up against the "Pornafia" and fight for the rights of Human Trafficking Victims and STAND UP to the attorneys who protect those involved in Human Trafficking such as Marc Randazza and his THUGS.

Forbes Journalist Kashmir Hill has relentlessly stood by Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group

Crystal COX is Dedicated to EXPOSING Randazza Legal Group 
"To Catch Government Workers With Ties to Child Porn, Call the IRS"

"There is a national crisis of federal employees engaged in the child porn industry and a related epidemic at the state level.  I’ve documented two states, Vermont and Maine, that appear to be running state protected child trafficking rings with evidence of cops, judges, lawyers, clergy and government employees covering for each other. This kind of racketeering creates powerful, and extremely profitable, pedophile rings.

YOU are ALL Journalists. SPEAK UP.
Money drives the crime. It is estimated that a criminal willing to molest a child in front of a live webcam can earn $1,000 a night. In Kittery Maine, at the “Danish Health Club,” one bust yielded $6.1 million in “door fees” over a five year period with “prostitutes” earning $12 million. Pimps’ earnings were not reported. The “door man” was a retired police officer whose wife worked in back. This bust happened because of one hard-working IRS agent, Rod Giguere."

"Child trafficking and porn are the fastest growing crimes in America. With billions being laundered in black money it makes solid economic sense for the IRS to focus on the child porn industry.  Eric Holder’s Department of Justice has demonstrated they have no interest in prosecuting pedophiles, not even their own. The IRS should be given substantial resources to compensate for DOJ’s disgraceful failure. American tax-payers, not to mention America’s children, will reap huge rewards."

Source of Article Quotes Regarding Child Porn Rings. IT Is time to Stop Vivid Entertainment, and the Lawyers and Law Firms who Protect PORN targeted at and with children such as Randazza Legal Group. FIGHT BACK.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/85broads/2012/09/19/to-catch-government-workers-with-ties-to-child-porn-call-the-irs/

Randazza Legal Group FIGHTS and SUES the whistle blowers in the Porn Industry. J. Malcom DeVoy, attorney with Randazza Legal Group and his client Sean Tompkins stalks, threatens, defames, harasses and constantly torments those who expose the EVILS of the Porn Industry. Marc J. Randazza is there "ring leader" and is protected by Corrupt Judges across the United States.

Stand up to Vivid Entertainment and to Liberty Media, the DRIVING force of porn targeted at children. Stand up to Disney, Warner Bros. and ALL who allow PORN targeted at Children. Stand up to the Attorneys that Protect EVIL such as J. Malcom DeVoy, Ronald Green and Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group.
THE First Amendment ALSO Applies to THOSE Exposing the PORN Industry,
and SPEAKING CRITICAL of PORN Attorneys such as Marc Randazza.
and Not Just those SELLING PORN.

Stand up to Bob Garfield of NPR and Kashmir Hill of FORBES who make Randazza Legal Group look like HEROS and make the VICTIMS out to be CRIMINALS.

Checkout Anti-Trust / Defamation Lawsuit against Forbes filed by Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox
http://ia801701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.1.0.pdf

Check Out RICO / Racketeering Lawsuit Filed
http://coxvrandazza.blogspot.com/2013/06/crystal-cox-vs-marc-j-randazza-rico.html


More on Vivid Entertainment EXPOSE

http://ethicscomplaint.blogspot.com/2013/07/vivid-should-be-stopped-from-parody.html

http://www.industrywhistleblower.com/2013/03/vivid-entertainment-vividcom-steven.html

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Tracy Coenen SHOULD not be Above the Law and have the Right to Defame, Trash or Lie About whom ever she wants to. Expose Tracy Coenen. File a Lawsuit Against Tracy Coenen with your facts and proof. One day she will be brought to JUSTICE.

"I was also a subject of one her hit piece blog posts:
www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2010/03/this-is-why-welfare-sucks/

She ends the blog post as follows:
Hutnik has a master’s degree in information systems and is supposedly looking for a job in his field. I don’t think he did himself any favors by tell his tale of woe to WalletPop. Imagine  being an employer interested in Hutnik and imagine doing a Google search. And up pops this article with him crying over not being able to feed at the government trough for more than three years. Would you hire him? I wouldn’t."

In short, Tracy has the power to keep me permanently unemployed, which I guess I deserve in her own mind."


Also Check Out

Blogger Crystal Cox SUES Tracy Coenen, She is Above the Law and Protected by Overreaching Judges and seemingly Corrupt Attorneys

Marc Randazza, attorney was also involved in the Marcus Evans Case, and the same Judge who dismissed Cox vs. Coenen in Illinois protected Tracy Coenen to defame these folks, and favored Porn Attorney Marc Randazza, Tracy Coenen's attorney in the case.


 Judge Matthew F. Kennelly was SWITCHED to Chicago Illinois Case #: 1:13-cv-03633 in order to PROTECT the interest of Tracy Coenen and Attorney Marc Randazza.
http://www.plaintiffcox.com/2013/06/judge-matthew-f-kennelly-has-yet-again.html

 Judge Matthew F. Kennelly dismissed the Crystal Cox case against Tracy Coenen, much more on that "Crystal Cox Crazy Train" coming Soon. as the TRUTH will one day be set free.

Got a Tracy Coenen TIP?
eMail me at SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com or post on the Facebook Victims Group Sites.