Request for Admissions; Crystal Cox Files Court Motion to Try and Get Marc Randazza to Answer Questions

First Motion Request for Admissions,

Answers Requested from Marc J. Randazza

to Defendant Crystal Cox’s Questions

Document 78, 2-13-2013

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.78.0.pdf

"I, Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox request this court to order Plaintiff /
Counter Defendant Marc J. Randazza, under oath, to answer this Motion Request for
Admissions, Answers to Defendant Crystal Cox Questions, as Follows:

Have you, Marc J. Randazza, had any private emails, phone calls, faxes, text messages, social
network communications, twitter communications, facebook communications, in chamber
meetings, lunches, meetings of any kind, or correspondence of any kind, that you have not
disclosed to Pro Se Defendant / Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox with Judge Marco Hernandez,
Judge Gloria Navarro, Judge Peggy Leen, or any Nevada Court Clerk or Oregon Court Clerk
regarding Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox in any way. If so when and
what was your topic of discussion.

Have you, Marc J. Randazza, had any private emails, phone calls, faxes, text messages, social
network communications, twitter communications, facebook communications, or
correspondence of any kind, that you have not disclosed to Pro Se Defendant / Counter Plaintiff
Crystal L. Cox with any business associates, past personal or business relationships of Crystal
Cox in any way, regarding Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox in any way. If
so when and what was your topic of discussion.

Have you, Marc J. Randazza, had any private emails, phone calls, faxes, text
messages, social network communications, twitter communications, facebook
communications, meetings of any kind, letters of any kind, document or memo
exchange of any kind, or correspondence of any kind, that you have not disclosed
to Pro Se Defendant / Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox with ANY of the following list
of Counter Defendants, Alleged Co-Conspirators:

If so please describe when, where and what your topic of discussion was with ANY of the
following in any way:

Any attorney from or with Greenberg Traurig Law Firm, Nevada, Florida, Boston, Denver,
London, Las Vegas, Miami, Chicago, New York, New Jersey.
Kenneth P. White, California Individual personally and professionally
Any attorney at Brown, White and Newhouse Law Firm.
Kashmir Hill of Forbes

Anyone at or pertaining to Forbes Inc.
Anyone at or pertaining to Godaddy Inc.

Bob Parsons, or Jessica Griffin of Godaddy.
Anyone at or pertaining to Tonkon Torp Law Firm, any Tonkon Torp Lawyer
David S. Aman, Michael Morgan, Steven Wilker,

Anyone at or pertaining to Proskauer Rose Law Firm, or any attorney with Proskauer Law Firm.
Kenneth Rubenstein, Allen Fagin, Gregg (Greggory) Mashberg, Jenifer DeWolf Paine, Joseph
Lecesse,

Anyone at or pertaining to WIPO
Francis Gurry, Erik Wilbers,
Peter L. Michaelson,

Anyone at or pertaining to New York Times, David Carr,
Anyone at or pertaining to Philly Law Blog
Jordan Rushie, ,

Leo M. Mulvihill, Jr.
Anyone at or pertaining to Mulvihill & Rushie, LLC.

Anyone at or pertaining to SaltyDroid, Jason Jones Esq.
Janine Robben

Anyone at or pertaining to Oregon State Bar Bulletin
Anyone at or pertaining to Liberty Media Holdings

John C. Malone,

Anyone at or pertaining to Corbin Fisher
Anyone at or pertaining to XBIZ,
Anyone at or pertaining to the Las Vegas Tribune

Anyone at or pertaining to Manwin, Business, Corporation, LUXEMBOURG, Montreal Canada,
Los Angeles

Bob Garfield,

Anyone at or pertaining to NPR, New York Public Radio
Tracy L. Coenen

Anyone at or pertaining to SequenceInc.com, Wisconsin

Mark Bennett,

Anyone at or pertaining to blog.bennettandbennett.com, Bennett and Bennett.
Scott H. Greenfield, Carlos Miller, John Calkins Sony
Eric Turkewitz
Matthew M. Triggs

Anyone at or pertaining to Turkewitz Law Firm and NewYorkPersonalInjuryAttorneyBlog.com,
Scott H. Greenfield of Simple Justice -
Anyone at or pertaining to blog.simplejustice.us
Brian Tannenbaum

Carlos Miller of PixIQ.com and PhotographyisNotaCrime.com, y
Roxanne Grinage,

Anyone at or pertaining to HireLyricsl
Sean Boushie

University of Montana, Missoula Montana
Royce Engstrom, Missoula Montana

Bernie Cassidy, Libby Montana County Attorney
Taylor Kai Groenke ( Kai Groenke),
Martin Cain, Dylan Energy,
APPLE, California Corporation

Steve Dowling, Bruce Sewell,

Doug Chey, Douglas D. Chey

Tim Vawter, The Protection Group Video

Judge Gloria M. Navarro personally and Professionally,

Daniel Staton Professional and Personally,

Marshall Ross Professional and Personally

Anyone at or pertaining to Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office

Anyone at or pertaining to Intel Corp.

Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation

Mark Vena,

David Wang,

Anyone at or pertaining to Synaptics,

Bret Sewell,

EDWARD KWAKWA,

P. Stephen Lamont,

Ari Bass - Michael Whiteacre,

Sean Tompkins,

Mercedes Ashley

Tara Akinlose

Leo M. Mulvihill,

Mulvihill & Rushie LLC, Philadelphia, PA Law Firm

Free Speech Coalition, California Non-Profit

Diana Duke

Liberty Media Holdings Connected Companies: Liberty Capital, AOL Inc. (1% through Liberty

Capital and 2% through Liberty Interactive), Barnes and Noble Inc. (17%), CenturyLink Inc. (1%)

Crown Media Holdings Inc. (3%), Current Communications Group LLC. (8% through Liberty

Partners and Liberty Associated Partners), Jingle Networks Inc. (9% through Liberty Partners

and Liberty Associated Partners), Kroenke Arena Company LLC. (7%), Live Nation

Entertainment Inc. (21%), Mobile Streams Inc. (16%), Motorola Mobility Inc. (2%)

Motorola Solutions Inc. (2%), Priceline.com Inc. (1%), Sirius XM Radio Inc. (40%)

Sprint Nextel Corporation (2%), Time Warner Cable Inc. (1% through Liberty Capital and 2%

through Liberty Interactive), Time Warner Inc. (1% through Liberty Capital and 2% through Liberty

Interactive) ,Viacom Inc. (1%)

Continued Questions for Marc J. Randazza to Answer Under Oath

Did You, at any time conspire or discuss in any way the securing or ownership of the Domain

Name Marc Randazza .com through any conversation, paperwork, emails, communications

with Plaintiff Kevin Padrick, or Plaintiff’s Attorney David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm ?

Did You, at any time conspire or discuss in any way the securing or ownership of the Domain

Name Marc Randazza .com through any conversation, paperwork, emails, communications

with Monica Foster aKa Alex Melody?

Did you ever threaten or intimidate Monica Foster aKa Alex Melody in any way?

Marc Randazza, did you conspire with Jessica Griffin at Godaddy to move the Domain Name

JenniferRandazza.com from Monica Foster’s Godaddy account to yours?"

..

Full Motion

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.78.0.pdf

Monica Foster and Desi Foxx, Porn Industry Insiders, Whistleblowers and Independent Investigative Bloggers Year End Report. Including the Gang Stalking, Harassment, and Bullying of Randazza Legal Group.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned the District Court’s ruling and declared that Cox was a journalist and therefore protected by the freedom of speech laws and the First Amendment."

NOW as a Matter of Law and Case Precedence, Due to the Crystal Cox Case ALL Bloggers are Legally Protected to Break the News and Report the News just as any main stream, institutional press Journalist, no matter who they work for.

"JOURNALIST OR BLOGGER: PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR NOT"

by Thomas Halek

"The opinions of the courts decide whether a blogger is a journalist and afforded the rights provided under the First Amendment.

DEFINITION OF A JOURNALIST

Dr. Anthony Curtis, Mass Communication Dept., University of North Carolina at Pembroke, in an article titled What is Journalism said, “Journalism is the practice of investigating and reporting events, issues and trends to the mass audiences of print, broadcast and online media such as newspapers, magazines and books, radio and television stations and networks, and blogs and social and mobile media.”

"IN THE EYES OF THE COURTS

How the courts have ruled on whether a blogger is a journalist and protected by the First Amendment has varied. In a paper titled, The Future of Online Legal Journalism, written by Christopher J. Davey, the Director of Public Information for the Supreme Court of Ohio, said, “The court speaks only through their opinions.” In the paper, Davey describes how the legal system’s view of on-line journalism has grown and changed since 1964 and the consequences because of it.

OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP v. CRYSTAL COX

On Mashable.com a headline reads, “Judge Hits Blogger With $2.5 Million Charge for Not Being a Journalist.” The case is OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP v. CRYSTAL COX. In The Atlantic, Robinson Meyer published an article U.S. Court: Bloggers Are Journalists. In the article, Meyer describes the case and the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit ruling.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned the District Court’s ruling and declared that Cox was a journalist and therefore protected by the freedom of speech laws and the First Amendment.

EMERITUS PROFESSOR JAMES PIELEMEIER INTERVIEW

Emeritus Professor James Pielemeier, a retired law professor from Hamline University, in an interview said, “It did seem to me that there was a trend towards treating bloggers like journalists in some areas, such as statutory Reporter’s Privileges (e.g. about confidential sources), at least if the statutory language arguably permitted such a result.” Pielemeier also said, “In general, there seemed to be a trend towards treating bloggers like journalists in other areas of first amendment law.”

Source and Full Article; Check it Out.
http://www.thomashalek.com/?page_id=419

A MAJOR Federal Victory by Blogger Crystal Cox paves the way for ALL Bloggers to Be Protected in a Court of Law to REPORT the "NEWS".

"In contrast, media resides in a legal framework that is deeply valued and protected. Since before theFirst Amendment of the Constitution was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, America stood out for its high tolerance of free speech and legal protection of the press. 

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost," wrote Thomas Jefferson to Dr. James Currie in 1786. 

Liberty was to be more valued than the dangers of defamation, a lesson that President Jefferson would learn for himself when mud began to be slung his way.

James Madison, 1st Amendment advocate/Wikipedia

That freedom and its supporting structures have become the air we breathe, ingrained institutionally and psychologically with the public and legally within our country's basic body of law.

Bloggers and website hosts can be thankful for their extensive protection from defamation lawsuits, like the attempts by former franchisor Mark Golob and personal injury attorney Nikolaus Reed, to two seismic events that have moved America farther down the road and further away from other countries in what it means to have a free press—New York Times Co. v. Sullivan andSection 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Newspapers had been weighed down by libel lawsuits from southern states that had a chilling effect on journalists reporting about civil rights violators. 

They acted as a news deterrent because the press feared that they would incur a defamation lawsuit by those cast in an unflattering light. The 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed all that. According to Justice William Brennan in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling ofNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to provide that "debate on public issues ... [should be] … uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." It created a "malice standard." It didn't matter if a journalist made errors in reporting. 

What mattered was if a report was reckless in its disregard of truth because of malice, which is difficult to prove.

The Civil Rights movement, Vietnam and then Watergate all eroded the public's faith in government and eventually corporate institutions. Enron, Arthur Anderson, AIG and Lehman Brothers only accelerated that distrust. 

For the sake of more open discussion and transparency, the public and the laws have greatly increased in toleration of attacks on reputations.

Then came Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Online host intermediaries like social media's Blue MauMau, Twitter, Facebook, Blogspot, UnhappyFranchisee or Yelp are not held liable for the writings and speech posted by others on their sites.

"I think Section 230 is the Internet equivalent of New York Times v Sullivan," says attorney Paul Steinberg. In essence, host providers of public forums are not liable for what people post on their site. "That fundamentally changed the game." Steinberg argues that social media couldn't exist without the legal protections of Section 230.

The win in the Superior Court of Mendocino County, California, by Sean Kelly comes just a few months after a major federal victory by another blogger."

Source and Full Article

http://www.bluemaumau.org/13936/freedom_press_includes_bloggers

For More

http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Bloggers all over the US are Rejoicing at the Ground Breaking Decision in the Crystal Cox Case. Now ALL Bloggers have Equal rights to REPORT the News and Break the NEWS. Equal to any mainstream Journalist or Reporter.

"On January 17, 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court issued its decision giving Cox the same protection as a journalist. Interestingly enough, the decision was based in part on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Court wrote, in part:

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.

Bloggers all over the US are rejoicing as are we.

The decision is short, so we are including it below the fold."

Source and Full Document

http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2014/01/19/bloggers-and-first-amendment-fans-rejoice/

For More
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Randazza V. Cox Lanham Act, Trademark Infringement, District of Nevada; Plaintiff Marc Randazza HAS no Case against Blogger Crystal Cox and NEVER Did.

Randazza et al v. Cox et al

District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040

Cause;  15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Nature Of Suit:  840 Trademark

Below is a Video of me, Crystal Cox discussing
the Original Complaint and Reading some of it.

Here is a Link to the Original Complaint attorney Marc Randazza filed against Blogger Crystal Cox to shut down and steal her gripe sites exercising her Free Speech Rights over him.

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.1.0.pdf

Below is a DENIAL of a Summary Judgement in Which
Shoots Down ALL of Marc Randazza, Plaintiff's ALLEGED "cause of action".

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

Below is a Video of Me Reading the Denial of Randazza's Summary

Here is the Entire Docket

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

Randazza et al v. Cox et al

District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040

Cause;  15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Nature Of Suit:  840 Trademark

1) VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL

CYBERPIRACY PROTECTIONS

– 15 U.S.C. § 8131

2) CYBERSQUATTING - 15 U.S.C. §

1125(d)

3) RIGHT OF PUBLICITY – NRS

597.810

4) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF

PUBLICITY

5) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF

INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION

6) CIVIL CONSPIRACY

The First Amendment TRUMPS Trademark. Yet First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza gets court to STEAL massive gripe sites from Blogger Crystal Cox claiming "Trademark" Violations. Talk about Abuse of Process and Abuse of Privilege as an Officer of the Court.

Research Links for those Researching Cases in which 

the First Amendment Trumps Trademark

First Amendment Trumps Trademark in Call of Duty Case
http://digilaw.edwardswildman.com/blog.aspx?entry=4878


District Court Holds That First Amendment Trumps Trademark Rights
http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&newsletter=8&id=6252


When does the First Amendment trump trademark law? 11th Circuit adopts Rogers v. Grimaldi test
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=acc79d7d-9ceb-4c66-8073-2e61cd8b4362



E.S.S. Entm’t 2000 v. Rock Star Videos: First Amendment Trumps Trademark Rights
http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iess_entmt_2000_v_rock_star_videos_i_first_amendment_trumps_trademark_right


EFF to Court: A Trademark Is Not A Censorship Tool
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/eff-court-trademark-not-censorship-tool


First Amendment TRUMPS Trademark;  Big Ruling Says Using Trademarks In Artistic Works Can Be Protected Under The First Amendment
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/18230119312/big-ruling-says-using-trademarks-artistic-works-can-be-protected-under-first-amendment.shtml


The Constitutional Trump Card: How a Trademark Infringement Game is Won Using a First Amendment Defense
"This session will address the tension between constitutional protections for expressive works and the Lanham Act’s prohibition on trademark infringement, unfair competition and false advertising.

Our speaker will discuss the expanding popularity of the Rogers v. Grimaldi First Amendment defense test and how his firm successfully used the Rogers test to defend a video game industry client in a trademark infringement action."
https://www.bostonbar.org/membership/events/event-details?ID=17092



Overview of Trademark Law
"Finally, certain parodies of trademarks may be permissible if they are not too directly tied to commercial use. The basic idea here is that artistic and editorial parodies of trademarks serve a valuable critical function, and that this critical function is entitled to some degree of First Amendment protection. The courts have adopted different ways of incorporating such First Amendment interests into the analysis. For example, some courts have applied the general "likelihood of confusion" analysis, using the First Amendment as a factor in the analysis. Other courts have expressly balanced First Amendment considerations against the degree of likely confusion. Still other courts have held that the First Amendment effectively trumps trademark law, under certain circumstances. In general, however, the courts appear to be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark."
https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm


When Does the First Amendment Trump Trademark Law?
11th Circuit Adopts Rogers v. Grimaldi Test
http://www.martindale.com/matter/asr-1586918.Trump.pdf


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 anther’s trademark.”"
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/internet/trademark-infringement-or-first-amendment-right-of-freedom-of-speech



"TRADEMARK RIGHTS GIVE WAY TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION"
http://allrightsreservedblog.com/2013/08/07/trademark-rights-give-way-to-freedom-of-expression/



Roll (Over) Tide! Free Speech Trumps Trademark Rights
http://www.srlawebsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Session-44-Batista.pdf



"[A] recent federal court decision from Virginia would allow trademarks to trump speech. 

In that case, Radiance Foundation v. NAACP, the fight was over a blog post that criticized the NAACP. The Radiance Foundation is a conservative non-profit that advocates for what it perceives to be appropriate family values. In a blog post titled “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” Radiance claimed that the NAACP embraces “all things liberal, most things socialistic, and nothing pro-life.”

The NAACP responded with a letter to Radiance threatening a lawsuit if it did not cease “using” the NAACP’s trademark. Radiance called on the courts for protection, asking for a declaration the blog post was protected speech. After a bench trial, Judge Raymond Jackson ruled against Radiance, finding that Radiance’s post infringed the NAACP’s trademark …."

Source and More
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/13/is-it-trademark-infringement-to-publish-an-online-article-with-the-title-naacp-national-association-for-the-abortion-of-colored-people/

The First Amendment TRUMPS Trademark 

Especially in Gripe Sites but NOT when it comes to First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza Suing Blogger Crystal Cox to retaliate, to suppress speech, to intimidate, to defame and paint her in false light to the world. Then Trademark is KING and Marc Randazza uses his power over the court process to take massive online content for 2 years and counting.   Marc Randazza stole blogs, domain names, search engine ranking and all with lies to the courts and cries of Trademark VIOLATION which were flat out FALSE.

More on Marc Randazza's Hypocrisy

http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/


Summary Judgment Denial Marc Randazza v. Crystal Cox case
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

Randaza v. Cox Docket, Including Counter Claim
Marc Randazza claimed my Gripe sites violated his ALLEGED "Trademark".
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

if you are Reading this and are an Attorney that wants to represent me in Randazza v. Cox, Please eMail me at SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com; I have a GREAT Counter Claim and you could make some money.