Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group
Complaint 314314 Details

  • Date Occurred: 03/05/2014
  • Reported Damages: $2,000,000.00
  • Username: CrystalCox
  • Email: [email protected]
  • Location: United States

The complaint is against an online dating profile

The complaint is a listing fraud posted on public forums or sites against an anonymous entity

The complaint is mobile text spam or smishing related against an anonymous entity

The company or person contact no longer exists

International boundaries

Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group filed a SLAPP Suit against Blogger Crystal Cox

Attorney Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group violated my constitutional rights, bullied me, harassed me, threatened me, interfered with a 10 Million Dollar civil suit against me, conspired with Tonkon Torp attorney David Aman to set me up for the crime of extortion, lied in a Ninth Circuit amicus brief about me, paid for an attorney for Dylan Energy's Martin Cain to file an amicus lying and defaming me, falsified evidence to the Nevada courts in a SLAPP suit against me (Randazza v. Cox), lied and falsified evidence to WIPO accusing me of extortion, has lied in sworn court documents about me, has threatened my sources who are exposing his connection to organized crime in the porn industry, has conspired with countless individuals to coerce them into giving him details of my private life and to assist him in entrapping me, setting me up for extortion and has continued this non-stop harassment for over 2 years and counting.

Harassing Complaint Filed to Data Mine Investigative Bloggers, Inventor and Whistleblowers
http://www.crystalcox.com/2014/03/amended-complaint-in-equity-for-bill-of.html

Also Check out Randazza News site by investigative blogger Monica Foster

Background

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

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

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

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

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

Cox now knows that Randazza was out to sabotage her high profile free speech case.

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

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

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

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

Randazza harmed Cox, acted unethically and violated the rights of Cox, acting as her attorney.

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

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

Cox, then knowing what Randazza had done to harm her, told Marc Randazza that he was fired and that she did not want his representation and to make sure that he knew he did not represent Cox on any further matters, and had no authority to act on her behalf. Cox included Volokh in these emails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randazza demanded Cox turn over the domain, he threatened Cox in making an enemy of him, and he went into a rage. Cox then decided to buy more domain names, and start more blogs speaking critical of and reporting on Randazza.
After this Cox began to get tips from Porn Industry insiders, of which Cox also posted.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


10.) On April 2nd 2012, Kashmir Hill, Forbes began publishing false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox, attacking a 3 year old, via the false and defamatory statements of Counter Defendant Randazza. Counter Plaintiff Cox had no blog about a 3 year old, made no statements online about this three year old, yet Kashmir Hill knowingly posted false and defamatory information regarding Cox.
Jordan Rushie, Mulvihill and Rushie LLC published false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Cox, in an article on Philly Law Blow, by Jordan Rushie, Titled " The Evolution of Crystal Cox: Anatomy of a Scammer", dated, April 3rd 2012. Jordan Rushie posted false and defamatory statements regarding Cox being guilty of extortion and attacking a three year old.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has caused Cox irreparable harm, suffering, and loss of business

Do You Have a Complaint?

Submit a Complaint

Comments

There are no comments posted. Be the first to comment on this complaint

Do You Have a Complaint?

Add a complaint and spread the word. High volume complaints have a better chance to get their money back. Submit a report and join forces with others like you!

Submit a Complaint Now

Business Profile Summary

  • Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group logo

Company Statistics

  • Complaint Against Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group
  • Complaints Filed: 1
  • Reported Damages: $2,000,000.00
Visit Complete Company Profile

What is SBID?

SBID is a unique id code that identifies the user's computer and location. SBID is used to prevent fraudulent postings and help our community find users who create duplicate user accounts.