Look at this FOLKS. Marc Randazza CONTROLS Rip Off Report. Ken White takes over my post, defames me, I post the TRUTH and whiny Randazza gets Rip Off Report to Redact his name.

Rip Off Report charges people for arbitration. Rip Off Report is perhaps the REAL EXTORTIONIST,  yet protects Marc Randazza. 
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/REDACTED-BY-EDITOR-DUE-TO-ABUSE-OF-WEBSITE/Las-Vegas-Nevada/Crystal-Cox-lost-case-in -9th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Cox-apparently-has-a-history-of-1112488

So funny, the JACKASS at Rip Off Report removes the name Randazza Legal Group and Marc Randazza to protect PORN attorney Marc Randazza. YET flat out lies about me, the one who posted the site. I DID NOT LOSE the Ninth Circuit Case, I WON.

RIP Off Report is controlled by Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group and Kenneth White of Brown White and Newhouse.

Marc Randazza is so sorry, people like Crystal Cox are NEEDED, oh and he wishes me to succeed. Oh and he ''thinks'' a ''deal'' can be ''brokered''.

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.257.0.pdf

Marc Randazza emails with Crystal Cox, CLEARLY he did not feel EXTORTED but yet PAINTED that to the world, and committed fraud on the courts I say.

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.261.0.pdf

A Docket riddled with whiny motions to strike, dismiss, and shut down blogger Crystal Cox. A Trademark court case filed by a ROGUE lawless attorney using YOUR TAX dollars, your courts for personal vengeance and personal gain.

Marc Randazza abuses the courts to target victims. He flat out lies over and over on court dockets. He sues YOU, ruins your life, and you have no way to fight back as he is a lawyer and he will bankrupt  you. He does this over and over.

Randazza uses protective orders, unconstitutional preliminary injunctions, NPR, Forbes, CNN, a gang of thug lawless attorney, threats, intimidation, and he uses the lawsuit he files against you to TARGET your church, get information from your bank accounts, harass and threaten your ex's - clients - and others, publicize your home address, get others to threaten to come to your town, hire private investigators to follow you, hire thugs to stalk you, threaten you, and keep you constantly tormented. All the while he convinces JUDGES that he is the good guy and his ''target'' is the bad guy and his big and small media, as well as WIPO and gang stalking attorneys use international publications, defamatory court documents made to seem LEGIT by lying gang stalking attorneys, and his constant legal actions and threats to keep you at his beck and call for years.

Marc Randazza is a LIAR, a THUG, and a Thief. He stole my blogs, my search engine ranking, my reputation, and he, as my former attorney painted me in false light to the world as a criminal WITH NO ADJUDICATED FACT what so ever.

Read this Entire Docket and LEARN what these attorneys do to violate the rights of due process, constitutional rights and civil rights of their target.

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

Crystal Cox's original counter complaint, STRICKEN by Judge Gloria Navarro against Cox's rights of due process and LAW.

Click Below to Read
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.24.0.pdf

Motion for Unconstitional TRO without First Amendment Adjudication, with attached hearsay as exhibits and Judge Gloria Navarro said OK, and gave Randazza massive online content..

in complete violation of the First Amendment Rights of Eliot Bernstein and Crystal Cox.

Motion for TRO, Full of Flat out Lies and Defamatory Yammer
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.2.0.pdf


Ex Parte Motion FULL of Defamatory LIES
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.6.0.pdf


Unconstitutional, Unethical ORDER granting Marc Randazza, and Randazza Legal Group domain names, blogs and sites that spoke critical of them. Non-Commercial sites with blog names that were CLEARLY, without a doubt GRIPE SITES.
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.14.0.pdf

Affirmative Defense; Randazza et al v. Cox et al, District of Nevada

''

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL

CRYSTAL L. COX,

Defendant, Pro Se

v.

MARC J. RANDAZZA,

Plaintiff,

                            Defendant Cox Statement, Declaration,

Affirmative Defense Statement.

                                                                                                                         Exhibit 24

Randazza v. Cox is a harassing SLAPP suit Randazza filed against Cox in retaliation and to shut down her blogs, suppress her speech, steal her top of the search engine gripe sites, suppress her First Amendment rights, bully her, intimated her, bankrupt her, ruin her career and reputation and harass her.

Randazza tried to unlawfully, unconstitutionally and unethically use Trademark law to suppress the Free Speech and First Amendment Rights of  Defendant Crystal Cox, of whom he knew could not afford an attorney to fight back as she is a pauper as he knew because he represented her for Free for a time in the Obsidian v. Cox Appeal.

Defendant Crystal Cox was Randazza's former client therefore, as a matter of law he does not have a legal right to sue Cox nor to represent anyone to sue Cox.

When Randazza represented Cox, he did so under Randazza Legal Group, therefore as a matter of law RLG cannot represent ANYONE to sue a former client.

Nevada Law:

Rule 1.18.  Duties to Prospective Client.

     (a) A person who discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.
     (b) Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.
     (c) A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter, except as provided in paragraph (d). If a lawyer is disqualified from representation under this paragraph, no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d).
     (d) When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined in paragraph (c), representation is permissible if:
            (1) Both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, confirmed in writing, or:
            (2) The lawyer who received the information took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client; and
                  (i) The disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
                  (ii) Written notice is promptly given to the prospective client.
     (e) A person who communicates information to a lawyer without any reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to discuss the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship, or for purposes which do not include a good faith intention to retain the lawyer in the subject matter of the consultation, is not a “prospective client” within the meaning of this Rule.
     (f) A lawyer may condition conversations with a prospective client on the person’s informed consent that no information disclosed during the consultation will prohibit the lawyer from representing a different client in the matter. If the agreement expressly so provides, the prospective client may also consent to the lawyer’s subsequent use of information received from the prospective client.
     (g) Whenever a prospective client shall request information regarding a lawyer or law firm for the purpose of making a decision regarding employment of the lawyer or law firm:
            (1) The lawyer or law firm shall promptly furnish (by mail if requested) the written information described in Rule 1.4(c).
            (2) The lawyer or law firm may furnish such additional factual information regarding the lawyer or law firm deemed valuable to assist the client.
            (3) If the information furnished to the client includes a fee contract, the top of each page of the contract shall be marked “SAMPLE” in red ink in a type size one size larger than the largest type used in the contract and the words “DO NOT SIGN” shall appear on the client signature line.
     [Added; effective May 1, 2006; as amended; effective September 1, 2007.]

So Randazza Legal Group cannot represent Randazza to sue a former client.

Nevada Law:

   Rule 1.9.  Duties to Former Clients.

     (a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
     (b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client:
            (1) Whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and
            (2) About whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter;
            (3) Unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
     (c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
            (1) Use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or
            (2) Reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.
     [Added; effective May 1, 2006.]

Randazza has no legal right to sue COX as his former client she is protected under attorney client laws. Ther

                2.  Cox has a right to review, parody and gripe about her former client.

Randazza v. Cox is clearly a meritless lawsuit that Randazza initiated to chill Defendant Crystal Cox's speech and stop her from  exercising her First Amendment free speech rights.”

Defendant Cox has never had a blog about a 3 year old. Randazza 

cannot prove that Cox did.

Plaintiff has no Trademark and cannot prove he had a trademark at the time he sued Cox.

Defendant Cox has not engaged in extortion.

Defendant Cox has not used Randazza's trademark to make any money in any way. Defend Cox has gripe sites about Randazza of which is her First Amendment right.

Defendant Never bought a domain with Plaintiff's last name to capitalize in any way, and Plaintiff cannot prove otherwise, there for further litigation on these allegations is mute.

Cox moves this  court to rule in her favor, and to provide a pretrial summary judgement or ruling of some kind i Cox's favor and to stop further litigation of Randazza's case against Cox as this court has clearly shot down in Document 200.

Defendant Cox has a legal right to make fun of her former First Amendment attorney Randazza.

Even if Randazza were to prevail on any of his allegation in which he cannot prove, it is clear that this court has no jurisdiction of Cox in those allegations.

Cox never acted in conspiracy against Plaintiff in any way.

I, Cox, have never made any money from Randazza's name and he cannot prove I did

I have never engaged in a scheme to cyberfly, never had a reason to do so.

I have never offered to remove anything from my blogs for a payoff.

Eliot Bernstein is NOT a Proxy and never has been.

There is no way whatsoever that Cox's gripe sites about the Plaintiff could be confused with his law firm's blogs. Cox's sites were and are a clear RANT about her mistreatment by her former attorney.

Plaintiff doe not have common law rights to the name Randazza.

The First Amendment trumps any common law rights or trademark rights

It is clear to any reader that Cox's sites are gripe sites, parody, poking fun, and there is no commercial goods sold using Randazza's alleged good name.

Randazza clearly has no right to privacy and seclusion laws, he is a very controversial, high profial porn att

Right of Publicity does not exist in this case, as a matter of law.

3.  Affirmative Defense that will be included in Trial Memorandum regarding Randazza’s allegations against Defendant Cox in Randazza v. Cox

are the following:

In November 2012, the Randazza's sued Cox alleging violations of individual cyberpiracy protections for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 8131, cybersquatting for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), their right of publicity under NRS 597.810, their common law right of publicity, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.

The claims were based on allegations that Cox registered several domain names containing Plaintiffs’ names, that Cox’s blog posts contained objectionable characterizations of the Plaintiffs, and that these acts were designed to extort and harass the Randazzas and capitalize on and damage the goodwill Marc Randazza claims he built up in his own name as a prominent First Amendment attorney.

Defendant Cox did NOT register any domain names to extort nor to harass Randazza but instead to review his law firm, gripe about him, and to provide consumer protection information.

Plaintiffs have failed to authenticate more than half of their proffered exhibits in support of their motion; and half of the authenticated ones are immaterial to this motion.

Authentication of Evidence The first step in analyzing these motions is to determine what evidence the Court may consider in evaluating whether the parties met their respective burdens. In Orr v. Bank of America, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “made it clear that ‘unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for summary judgment.’” To authenticate a document, the proponent must offer “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.’”

Documents may be authenticated two ways: (1) through the personal knowledge of a party who attests that the document is what it purports to be;

Case Law Applying to the Above

(6) Am., 285 F.3d 764, 733 (9th Cir. 2002). Las Vegas Sands, 632 F.3d at 532-33 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)). (7) Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (citing Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. (8) v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 745 n.11 (1983)).

or (2) any other manner permitted by Federal Rules of Evidence 901(b) (which provides ten methods of authentication) or 902 (identifying self authenticating documents that “require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted”).

Documents authenticated through personal knowledge must be attached to an affidavit 9 signed by a person with personal knowledge about the document (such as the drafter or signer of the document, or the custodian of the document kept in the ordinary course of a business, depending on the type of document and its particular relevance), or properly authenticated deposition testimony in which the same information was elicited. (10)

Plaintiffs’ proffered evidence falls into several categories, and the Court addresses each in turn: 1. Periodicals Plaintiffs offer at Exhibit B an article from Forbes Magazine. Printed material “purporting to be a newspaper or periodical” is self-authenticating. Thus, this article is self-authenticating. Its (11) contents, however, are hearsay not subject to any exception.

Accordingly, the periodical is not admissible for summary judgment purposes. 2. Websites Few courts have considered how a website print-out or blog posting may be authenticated. Those that have considered the issue have found “website print-outs [were] sufficiently authenticated

(9) and certified; foreign public documents; certified copies of public records; official publications; newspapers and periodicals; trade inscriptions and the like; acknowledged or notarized documents; commercial paper and related documents; presumptions under a federal statute; and certified domestic or foreign records of a regularly conducted activity.)

See Orr, 285 F.3d at 773-74 (“documents authenticated through personal knowledge must (10) be “attached to an affidavit that meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) and the affiant must be a person through whom the exhibits could be admitted into evidence.”); see also id. at 774 (deposition transcripts are authenticated “by attaching the cover page of the deposition and the reporter's certification to every deposition extract submitted. It is insufficient for a party to submit, without more, an affidavit from her counsel identifying the names of the deponent, the reporter, and the action and stating that the deposition is a ‘true and correct copy.’ Such an affidavit lacks foundation even if the affiant-counsel were present at the deposition.”).

Fed. R. Evid. 902(6).

… where the proponent declared that they were true and correct copies of pages on the internet and the print-outs included their webpage URL address and the dates printed.” (12) The websites contained in Exhibits E, K, Q, R, S, and T have been properly authenticated under this standard because Plaintiff Marc Randazza has attested that they are true and correct copies and the print-outs include the webpage URL address and the dates the websites were printed.13 However, Plaintiffs have not authenticated any of the purported website contents in Exhibits D, G, M, O, and P. Although Mr. Randazza has attested that these exhibits are true and correct copies and the print-outs include the webpage URL address, absent are the dates the webpages were printed.

Without the print dates, these website printouts have not been properly authenticated, and the Court will not consider them. 3. Letters, Emails, and Text Messages A document may be authenticated by personal knowledge “by a witness who wrote it, signed it, used it, or saw others do so.” Although circumstantial evidence—like an email’s context, email 14 address, or previous correspondence between the parties—may help to authenticate an email, the 15 most direct method of authentication is a statement from its author or an individual who saw the author compose and send the email. (16)

Case Law Applying to the Above

(12) Haines v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 1:10–cv–01763–SKO, 2012 WL 1143648 *7 (E.D. 12 Cal. April 4, 2012).

(13)  See Docs. 75-1, 75-7, 75-13, 75-19, 75-20, 75-21, 75-22. 13 Orr, 285 F.3d at 774 n.8 (citing references omitted).

(14) United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318, 1322–23 (11th Cir. 2000).

(15) United States v. Fluker, 698 F.3d 988, 999 (7th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiffs have not authenticated the purported emails in this case nor have Plaintiffs Proven that Cox has Violated Tradmark Law.

1. Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims 1-3 relating to violations of individual cyberpiracy protections under 15 U.S.C. § 8131.

Plaintiff Randazzas’ first, second, and third claims arising under 15 U.S.C. § 8131 allege that Defendants’ registration of the multiple domain names violates the provision that provides cyberpiracy protection for individuals. In pertinent part, section 8131 provides that:

        [a]ny person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party, shall be liable in a civil action by such person. (30)

It is undisputed that Cox did not intend to profit on said name nor did Cox register domain names in bad faith.

To prevail under this theory, a plaintiff must show that the specific intent to profit existed at the time of the registration. Randazza cannot prove this and therefore does not have a Valid claim.  The statute further provides a very limited exception for good-faith registrants: (31)

    A person who in good faith registers a domain name consisting of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, shall not be liable under this paragraph if such name is used in, affiliated with, or related to a work of authorship protected under Title 17, including a work made for hire as defined in section 101 of Title 17, and if the person registering the domain name is the copyright owner or licensee of the work, the person intends to sell the domain name in conjunction with the lawful exploitation of the work, and such registration is not prohibited by a contract between the registrant and the named person. The exception under this subparagraph shall apply only to a civil action brought under paragraph (1) and shall in no manner limit the protections afforded under the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) or other provision of Federal or State law.(32)

Case Law Applying to the Above

Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 28 248-49.

See 15 U.S.C. § 8131. 29 Id. at § 8131(1)(A).

(32) Id. at § 8131(1)(B).

Plaintiff Randazza have FAILED to show and CANNOT show admissible evidence that at the time the Defendants registered domain names there was a specific intent to profit by selling the domains to Plaintiffs or a third party. Therefore this Cause of action is MUTE and not actionable.

2.   Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on claims 4-5 for Cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

The Randazzas’ fourth and fifth claims allege that Defendants’ registration of the domain names violates the provision that prohibits cybersquatting. To prevail on a cybersquatting claim, a 35 plaintiff must show that: “(1) the defendant registered, trafficked in, or used a domain name; (2) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark owned by the plaintiff; and (3) the defendant acted with bad faith intent to profit from that mark.” Plaintiffs have failed to show and CANNOT show, by admissible evidence, essential elements of these cybersquatting claims, and therefore have no VALID Claim against Cox.

Plaintiff Randazza CANNOT show ANY admissible evidence essential elements of these cybersquatting claims.

Jennifer and Natalia Randazza’s claims fail as a matter of law because they have not alleged or shown any facts to support common-law trademarks in their personal names. Thus, Jennifer and Natalia are not entitled to any relief or claim against COX.

Assuming Mr. Randazza could show a common law trademark in his name, he has not demonstrated Defendants acted with bad-faith intent to profit from that mark.

To determine whether Defendants acted in bad faith, the Court considers the nine nonexclusive factors outlined in § 1125(d)(1)(b):

(1) the trademark or intellectual property rights of the defendants in the domain name; (2) the extent to which the domain name is the legal name of a person, (3) defendant’s prior use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services,

(4) whether the defendant made a bona fide noncommercial fair use of the domain name, (5) defendant’s intent to divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site,

(6) whether the defendant offered to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name, (7) whether the defendant provided false contact information when registering the domain name, (8) whether the defendant registered multiple domain names which defendant knew were identical to or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, and (9) the extent to which the trademark incorporated into the domain name is distinctive.

Plaintiff Randazza has not and CANNOT show admissible evidence that the non-exhaustive factors balance in his favor. 

Although some factors may balance in his favor, such as factors 1-3, others arguably do not, such as 4-7. As Plaintiffs have failed to prove an essential element of these claims, and cannot at trial.

3. Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on claim 6 for Right of Publicity under NRS § 597.810.

Plaintiffs’ sixth claim alleges that Defendants’ registration of the domain names containing the entirety or part of the Randazzas’ personal names violated their rights of publicity under Nevada law. NRS § 597.810 prohibits “[a]ny commercial use of the name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness of another by a person, firm or corporation without first having obtained written consent for the use. . . .” The statute defines “commercial use” as “the use of the name, voice, signature,  photograph or likeness of a person on or in any product, merchandise or goods or for the purposes of advertising, selling or soliciting the purchase of any product, merchandise, goods or service.”

Genuine issues of material fact also preclude entry of judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on this privacy claim. 

The Randazza's have failed to show by admissible evidence that Defendants intended to advertise, sell, or solicit the purchase of any product, merchandise, goods, or service. Indeed, Plaintiffs have offered no admissible evidence that tends to show any commercial use of the their names.

Defendant has had no material gain, and Plaintiff cannot prove that Defendant violated the alleged right to privacy or that they had a reasonably right to privacy in being a high profile porn and first amendment attorney.

4. Claim for Common Law Right of Publicity is legally untenable.

Plaintiffs’ seventh claim alleges that Defendants’ registration of the domain names containing the entirety or part of the Randazzas’ personal names violated their common law rights of publicity. 

“Nevada has codified the right of publicity tort.” Because “[t]he statute provides a 40 complete and exclusive remedy for right of publicity torts,” Nevada law does not recognize a common law right of publicity.

As Nevada law does not recognize this cause of action, Plaintiffs have failed to state a viable claim under this legal theory, and this claim is dismissed with prejudice. Therefore Plaintiff Randazza has no claim.

5. Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on claim 8 for common law intrusion upon seclusion.

The Randazzas’ eighth claim alleges that Defendants’ registration of five of the domain names containing the entirety or part of their names amounted to a common law intrusion upon seclusion. To recover for the tort of intrusion, a plaintiff must prove that there was an intentional intrusion (physical or otherwise) on his seclusion that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. “[T]o have an interest in seclusion or solitude which the law will protect, a plaintiff must show that he or she had an actual expectation of seclusion or solitude and that that expectation was objectively reasonable.”

Generally, there is a decreased expectation of privacy in the workplace and for individuals who have interjected themselves into the public sphere.

Genuine issues of material fact preclude entry of judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on this intrusion claim. Plaintiffs Jennifer and Natalia have failed to show by admissible evidence that the mere registration of a domain name would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and Mr. Randazza has failed to show that registering the domain names, coupled with the comments contained in the two admissible blog posts, would be highly offensive to the reasonable person as a matter of law.

Randazza has a decreased expectation of privacy in his workplace. By his own characterization, he is an attorney “renowned through the United States and the world for expertise in First Amendment, intellectual property, and Internet law.” He authors “a blog about various legal issues,” and the blog is an ABA-recognized top blog website.

On his blog, he goes to great lengths to explain “why [he has] the audacity to believe that [he is] qualified to teach [others] a thing or two.” He touts himself as having “experience and expertise in all areas of First Amendment and  entertainment law matters.” He boasts about “get[ting] to fight ‘the good fight’ – protecting all of our First Amendment freedoms,” and openly proclaims that he has “represented adult entertainment establishments against socially conservative communities.”

By talking about his experience and the clients he represents, Mr. Randazza invites commentary on his work as an attorney and criticism from those who oppose the positions of his clients. Mr. Randazza may be perceived to have interjected himself into the public sphere by making television and radio guest appearances, giving quotes and interviews in newspapers, magazines, and other publications, appearing at speaking engagements, and having an ABA-recognized Top blog website, all as reflected on his résumé. 

Considering his intentional and deliberate professional exposure and interjection into the public sphere and the accompanying decrease in his privacy interests, he has not demonstrated as a matter of law that he had an actual or reasonable expectation that he would not be criticized based on his work as an attorney or that he would not be thought about unfavorably by people in opposition to his work. As the Randazzas have failed to establish essential elements of this claim and cannot Plaintiff has no claim.

6. Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on claim for Civil Conspiracy.

Plaintiffs’ ninth claim alleges that Bernstein and Cox colluded to register the domain names containing the entirety or part of the Randazzas’ names to violate their rights. To state a valid claim for civil conspiracy, a plaintiff must show: 

(1) defendants, by acting in concert, intended to accomplish an unlawful objective for the purpose of harming the plaintiff; and 

(2) the plaintiff sustained damages as a result. “A civil conspiracy claim operates to extend, beyond the active wrongdoer, liability in tort to actors who have merely assisted, encouraged or planned the wrongdoer’s acts.” Genuine issues of material fact also preclude entry of judgment in the Randazzas’ favor on this theory. They have not demonstrated by admissible evidence that Cox and Bernstein acted in concert. Nor can Plaintiff prove this and therefore Plaintiff has no claim.

Case Law on the Above

NRS § 597.810 38 Id. at § 597.770(1). 39 People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., 895 P.2d 1269, 1285 (9th 40 Cir. 1995).

Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Wong v. Bell, 642 42 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that a district court may dismiss claims sua sponte pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), without notice, where a claimant could not possibly win relief.). Berosini, 895 P.2d at 1279. 43 Id. (citations omitted). 44 Id. at 1281 n.20. 45 Doc. 75-1, at ¶ 1.

The First Amendment TRUMPS Trademark Law

Even if it was found Cox’s Gripe sites were a violation of Randazza’s alleged Trademark, Cox’s First Amendment Right TRUMP any Trademark Randazza may Have.

See; In  Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (9th  Cir. 1989),

In  University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art,  Inc., 683 F.3d 1266 (11th  Cir. June 11, 2012),

In a battle between two video game heavyweights – Novalogic, Inc. and Activision Blizzard – a California federal court held that Novalogic’s attempt to enjoin Activision from using the phrase “Delta Force” and a Delta Force logo in “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3” is barred by the First Amendment. Novalogic v. Activision Blizzard et al. [No. 12-4011]

A recent trademark infringement case out of the Eastern District of California demonstrates that the First Amendment may trump a trademark owner's objections to use of a similar mark by a political opponent. In the case of Protectmarriage.com-Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal v. Courage Campaign, 93 U.S.P.Q.2d 1477 (E.D. Cal. 2010), the plaintiff, ProtectMarriage.com, is a nonprofit organization opposed to same-sex marriage in California.

   A TRADEMARK IS NOT A CENSOR TOOL

In  The United  States  Court  of  Appeals   For The Fourth Circuit

THE RADIANCE  FOUNDATION, INC. and  RYAN  BOMBERGER,  individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION  FOR THE ADVANCEMENT  OF COLORED PEOPLE, Defendant-Appellee.

ON  APPEAL  FROM  THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT  COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT  OF VIRGINIA  AT NORFOLK BRIEF  OF  THE ELECTRONIC  FRONTIER FOUNDATION AND THE ACLU  OF  VIRGINIA  AS  AMICI  CURIAE   IN  SUPPORT  OF  PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS  

E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 547 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir 2008) ...................................................... 10, 11, 12 Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (2007) ................................................................................................. 17 Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005) ........................ 15, 16 Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................passim People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 13 Radiance Found., Inc. v. Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Colored People, 2014 WL 2601747 (E.D. Va. June 10, 2014) ..

Trademark Laws SHOULD NOT be used to trample First Amendment Rights

"In a blog post titled “NACCP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” Radiance Foundation Inc. (“Radiance”) stated that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) holds “all things liberal, most things socialistic, and nothing pro-life.” On April 24th, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found Radiance liable for trademark infringement and trademark dilution for its use of NAACP’s trademark in its blog post. Radiance Found., Inc. v. NAACP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57431. The court ruled that Radiance violated the Lanham Act, provisions 15 U.S.C. §1114 and 1125, as well as Virginia Code §59.1-92.12(i), VA. Code Ann. § 59.1-92.12(i) (West 2011). Radiance appealed, and the EFF and ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of Radiance.

Building on three prior Circuit Court cases holdings that “artistic or political use of a trademark” and “literary titles” do not violate the Lanham Act “so long as the level of relevance to the underlying work is merely . . . above zero,” the EFF and the ACLU argue that Radiance’s use of the term “NAACP” in an article title was not infringing on a confusion theory. Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002), and E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 547 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir 2008). The brief reasons that “Radiance’s use of NAACP’s trademark in the title of an article was directly relevant to the article’s political goal and did not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the article.”  The brief emphasizes that Rogers, Mattel, and E.S.S. Entertainment showed “that the First Amendment broadly protects cultural reference, commentary, criticism and parody, including when such speech uses another's trademark.”"

Free  Speech  Trumps  Trademark  Rights   in University of Alabama v. Moore

In Conclusion,

Clearly, as a matter of law, this case is a SLAPP suit Randazza filed against Cox to shut down her blogs, suppress her speech, steal her top of the search engine gripe sites, suppress her First Amendment rights, bully  her and harass her.

Cox was Randazza's former client and he does not have a legal right to sue her as his former client she is protected under attorney client laws. Therefore this court should rule in Cox's favor and stop this 3 year madness.

Cox has a right to review, parody and gripe about her former client.

Randazza v. Cox is clearly a meritless lawsuit that Randazza initiated primarily to chill Defendant Crystal Cox's speech and stop her from  exercising her First Amendment free speech rights.”

Crystal L. Cox, Pro Se

Counter Plaintiff / Defendant

Certification of Service

On April  7, 2015, Crystal Cox certifies mailing a copy of this to:

U.S. District Court

Clerk of Court

Room 1334

333 Las Vegas Blvd. S.

Las Vegas , NV 89101''

Source, Randazza v. Cox Case
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IDRCGEqXQGOiGq3uHpBa6qW2gOCEkQOLTzYpvvHrmfI/edit

Full Docket of Randazza et al v. Cox et al
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

Crystal Cox Counterclaims, Declaration of Facts in Randazza vs. Cox District of Nevada.

Document 254, Randazza v. Cox;

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL

CRYSTAL L. COX,

Defendant, Counter Plaintiff

v.

MARC J. RANDAZZA,

Plaintiffs, Counter Defendant

                                                                         Declaration / Statement of Facts / Testimony

On or about December 10th, 2011, one of my Bloggers on my Independent Blog Network, contacted me regarding his contacting an attorney named Marc Randazza. (See Exhibit 18)

I had just lost a major free speech case ( Obsidian Finance Group vs. Cox) and he thought Marc Randazza would be a good fit, and may represent me for Free, as he had just had some TSA case in the media.

I had never heard of attorney Marc Randazza, however, I agreed to have a 3 way phone conversation regarding the possibility of me agreeing to allow Mr. Randazza to represent me, in what had quickly become my high profile First Amendment Case. (see Exhibit 18 to show the initial conversation regarding scheduling a conference call, sending court documents.)

On December 6th, 2011 I had previously spoke to UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh. He called me and asked if he could represent me on my Appeal of Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox and with absolutely no cost to me.

Eugene Volokh is a law professor and does not practice law regularly. So he had to get the final approval of the law firm Mayer Brown LLP. Therefore I had not had firm representation yet from him when I spoke with Marc Randazza. And was open to both or either of them representing me on my Ninth Circuit Appeal, at that time.

On my representation conference call with Marc Randazza, we discussed my strategy for my appeal, as well as my strengths and weaknesses and what I was willing to do and not willing to do.

Randazza told me I had made a mess of the case and he would have to look over all the documentation to decide if he would be able to take my case. Randazza told me that Big Media had a monopoly on Free Speech and that is just the way it is.

Randazza attempted to get me to not appeal, by telling me it was best for all of society if I did not appeal. Randazza asked me my strategy, what I was open to in moving forward, and what I was not. He questioned me on many aspects of my intentions for my appeal.

Randazza told me that he represented the Media Association for Bloggers and may have a conflict of interest in representing me, and that he would get back to me after I gave him all of the documents of my case and he checked with them.

As Exhibit 19 shows, on December 14th, 2011 Randazza confirmed his representation of Cox.

On December 15th, As Exhibit 20 shows, Randazza and Volokh were working with, and keeping Cox in the loop on their representation and the case strategy. They were discussing ordering court documents and had phone calls discussion how to best move forward with my case. They were both representing Cox at that time and in talks about the case with the courts, other attorney and Cox.

Thereafter, it came to my attention that Randazza had contacted attorney David Aman, the opposition in my case, and was negotiating a deal that would stop my appeal and somehow change the status of the judgement .  Eugene Volokh told me this in a phone call and as you see in emails of Dec. 15th, 2011, in Exhibit 1. 

Also in Exhibit 1 and that phone call Eugene Volokh told Cox that Randazza was disccussing, with other First Amendment bar attorneys that he represented Cox and was trying to broker a deal.

I had no knowledge of the details of this negotiation, nor any terms of it and Randazza did not have my permission to present a deal of any kind yet. Especially one without me knowing the detail.

As seen in Exhibit 21, On December 16th 2011 at 9:21 am, I fired Randazza. I told him he does not represent me and that only Eugene Volokh represents me.

Also seen in Exhibit 21,  On December 16th 2011 at 12:55 PM Randazza says he has no issue with me doing that and offers to help me in the future in anyway he can.

Exhibit 21 shows that Marc respect Cox, apologized if I felt not treated well and said that

"People like you are important for the future of citizen journalism, and I wish to see you succeed."

It shows he lied about representation. and admits to trying to broker a deal on Cox's behalf, which is the very definition of "representation.  Exhibit 21 shows Randazza saying, "I did tell the opposing counsel that I thought a deal might be brokered".

Exhibit 21 shows Randazza saying, "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."

Cox took her former client, who claimed to humbly respect her, apologize, say people like her were need, at his word. Cox truly believed that Randazza was sincere in letting him know if he could help, even in the background. Cox had lost her home, lost her income and needed a job, this was the help she needed. She simply asked Randazza if he knew anyone or would hire Cox for PR work and yet he maliciously, deliberately and knowing the truth painted to the world that Cox had extorted him.  Knowing full well that he did not believe this, he simply want to teach Cox a lesson, intimidate her and ruin her life.

In which he succeeded. He convinced the world Cox was a criminal who had attacked his infant daughter. This ruined Cox's family relationships, business, friendships, ability to rent a home and has left Cox desolate, homeless and unable to rent, to work or to secure clients.

As all exhibits show, Marc Randazza was acting as my attorney. He worked with others in this representation such as Eugene Volokh and the opposition David Aman.

Cox would have kept Randazza on with Volokh had he not lied to her, berated her, presented deals to the opposition without her permission or knowledge of what they were, in her 2.5 million dollar judgment and the appeal.

Randazza retaliated against his former client, and Exhibit 21 proves that he did so with intent, maliciously and after claiming, offering to be of any kind of help.

On January 16th, 2012 Cox emailed Randazza asking for a possible job or job recommendation. On January 17th Randazza emailed Cox back. See Exhibit 17.

Exhibit 17 shows that, though Randazza was upset that Cox registered the domain name he did not believe she had a reasonable or ethical right to own, he did not tell her he believed it was against the law, or extortion in any way.

Randazza is well known for defending the rights of others to have domain names with other people's names in it, such as the Glenn Beck case he was in.

I, Crystal Cox, had also won a WIPO case with the domain names of 3 Proskauer Rose attorneys in them and had one that case, therefore I had no reason to believe it would be an issue.

I, Crystal Cox, assumed he would have no issue with it, as I had read his legal arguments and thought, at the time he was a true proponent of Free Speech rights for all.

Exhibit 17 CLEARLY shows that Counter Defendant Marc Randazza did not have an issue with Cox asking him for a Job.

In fact Exhibit 17 shows clearly, without a doubt that Randazza did not believe he was being extorted, but that in fact, he believed Cox was unreasonable and unethical for registering the domain name, but that she was just asking for a job.

Exhibit 17 proves that Randazza, with full knowledge of it being false, interviewed and flat out lied, made false and defamatory statements to NPR, Forbes, the New York Times, WIPO, the Czech Courts, Tracy Coenen and the Fraud Files, Kenneth White attorney blogger of Popehat.com and numerous other well connected bloggers, and Media around the world.   As well as made these false and defamatory statement in courts and on his own blog. KNOWING full well that it was false.

RANDAZZA gave blogger attorney Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com Cox's personal, priviliged, private email to her former attorney who told her to let him know if he could help her in any way, and he used this email to paint Cox in false light, deliberately not posting the whole email thread which showed that he knew Cox was asking for a job.

Therefore because Cox would not simply turn over a domain name he thought she had no right to own, he went on NPR, interviewed with the New York Times, Forbes, Popehat.com, and he viciously, deliberately, knowing it was false, lied, made false statements to WIPO who used their global clout to ruin the lives of Eliot Bernstein and Crystal Cox and accuse them worldwide and nationwide, in legal blogs, in big and small media, that Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein ( who never was even in the email) had extorted him, which is a felony crime.

Cox is entitled to relief for the damage Randazza has caused her, though Cox has no attorney or way to articulate this evidence on a legal basis. Cox has valid claims and exhibit 17 further proves this.

Exhibit 17 shows that Randazza was "deeply offended" and that he did not think Cox was reasonable or ethical. However, Randazza clearly never claimed Cox was extorting him, nor did he believe this at the time. Yet later, in retaliation, he deliberately defamed Cox in a widespread, malicious, willful and wanton campaign of revenge, harassment, and widespread posting and speaking false and defamatory statements against Cox to third parties. This ruined Cox's life, quality of life and business. This also put Cox in constant danger, duress and up against massive, widespread hate in big and small media around the world.  And simply for registering a domain name and asking for a job.

Randazza has caused Cox irreparable damage.

Exhibit 17 shows Counter Defendant Marc Randazza Say, "Asking me for a job, or a recommendation?  That doesn't bother me in the least."  Yet because Cox did not do as he told her to, he retaliated and ruined her life. And told countless media that he was not only bothered by it but put in terror, stress and extreme duress over it. Which was untrue and Exhibit 17 shows this.

Approx. March 30th, 2012, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza began publishing false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox, attacking a 3 year old online. Defendant Kashmir Hill then interviewed, spoke with Counter Defendant Marc Randazza and published these same  false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox. (Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 8)

On April 2nd 2012, Defendant Kashmir Hill began  publishing false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox, attacking a 3 year old. Plaintiff Crystal Cox had no blog about a 3 year old, made no statements online about this three year old, yet Defendant Kashmir Hill knowingly posted false and defamatory information regarding Counter Plaintiff Cox.  (Exhibit 8)

Jordan Rushie, then of Mulvihill and Rushie LLC now an attorney with Randazza Legal Group, 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.  (Exhibit 7 and 7a, and Exhibit 15)

On April 6th 2012, Bob Garfield interviewed  Counter Defendant Marc Randazza on Defendant wNYC,  New York Public Radio. The show was called “COMBATING "BAD" SPEECH WITH MORE SPEECH”, Dated, April 06, 2012. On the Media, as Exhibits show.  Bob Garfield and Counter Defendant Marc Randazza stated false and defamatory, slanderous statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox. Bob Garfield and Counter Defendant Marc Randazza 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 Counter Plaintiff Cox immeasurable, irreparable damage.  (Exhibit 4)

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

Essential using his own interviews with them as purported and believed evidence, though it was false and defamatory statements of fact with willful, wanton, deliberate and malicious intent.

On July 27th 2012, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza filed a WIPO complaint against Counter Plaintiff Cox and Eliot Bernstein, to initiate a domain name dispute. In this case, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza stated false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox.  Counter Defendant Marc Randazza use Kashmir Hill, Jordan Rushie and David Carr’s false and defamatory statements as his evidence to steal the intellectual property of Counter Plaintiff Cox. Counter Defendant Marc Randazza also stated to third party WIPO that Counter Plaintiff Cox was guilty of Extortion and had also extorted him, yet attorney Counter Defendant Marc Randazza had filed no criminal charges against Cox nor allowed her due process of law.  ( Exhibit 2)

As Exhibits 2-8 AND 10-16 show Big and Small Media as well as attorney bloggers, radio shows, international intellectual property law, legal publications, the associated press, small and large bloggers and publishers and more picked up the story or were directly told by Randazza false and defamatory statements and told to post his version of the facts, which, as Exhibits show, were clearly false and defamatory and with full knowledge of the law and their falsehood.

This has been written to the best of my knowledge and truest ability.

Cox seeks all allowable relief, as a matter of law for the damage Randazza has done to her.

Crystal L. Cox, Pro Se

Counter Plaintiff / Defendant

Certification of Service

On April 6 , 2015, Crystal Cox certifies mailing a copy of this to:

U.S. District Court

Clerk of Court

Room 1334

333 Las Vegas Blvd. S.

Las Vegas , NV 89101

Exhibit 18 Links
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1DaGsG-GTl0ct7yeBJBj-7jXm3_EByqwMiF8d6emzbkABfZVtAWmJbuK3AcO9J8qgUpps-mDVjfRnygFq/edit


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkibkxBTzhKWkp3U1k/edit


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiYksxQlVZM0pJU0U/edit



Exhibit 22
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiU29GUEZTR2ZycnM/edit


EXHIBIT - Randazza is deeply offended but knows Cox was asking for a job and not attempting to extort him.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiY00tM3lidGw0M2M/edit