Friday, December 12, 2014

CounterDefendant Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group SAYS "there was no attorney-client relationship with Counterclaimant" (Blogger Crystal Cox)

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group SAYS;

"there was no attorney-client relationship with Counterclaimant, no contract existed for representation of Counterclaimant, and Counterdefendant had not committed to the representation of Counterclaimant. "

Source
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.220.0.pdf
(Page 3)

So if there was "no attorney-client relationship" then on what authority did Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group act in telling Eugene Volokh that a settlement was best for Cox, that he would "bow out", or offer a co-counseling relationship?

If there was "no attorney-client relationship" then on what authority did Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group negotiate a "settlement" with opposing counsel that he decided was in my best interest?

If there was "no attorney-client relationship" then on what authority did Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group tell other First Amendment Attorneys that he represented me, and pretty much had it handled, so they would not contact me to represent me?

If there was "no attorney-client relationship" then on what authority did Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group take it upon himself to try and reword a court opinion or something action to change my ruling in a way that would benefit his present and future clients, mostly in the Porn Industry?

If there was "no attorney-client relationship" then on what authority did Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group tell Eugene Volokh that he indeed was my attorney in this matter, then offer that possibly Eugene Volokh could co-counsel?

So Randazza says he was not my attorney and had "no attorney-client relationship" yet he made all these actions, discussions, offers, negotiations on "my behalf", REALLY?  And that is not a violation of law or constitutional rights in any way?

So CLEARLY Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group did represent me, Crystal Cox.

Then after this REPRESENTATION when I fired him for lying, being a pompass ass, violating my constitutional rights, berating me, talking a deal behind my back, lying about what I wanted the outcome to be and other reasons then he used his legal knowledge, my proprietary information, my legal strategy, my private information and information he gained through representation; to defame me, harass me, bully me, intimidate me, ruin my quality of life and he used his media connections to accuse me of crimes in which I had no adjudication or due process on in any way and simply ruined my life, attacked me, violated my privacy rights, harassed and violated the rights of my sources, sued me and my sources, and engaged in conspiracy with a large amount of legal bloggers, lawyers, investigators, online media, NPR, Forbes, and even Judges.


After this Clear REPRESENTATION, Marc Randazza sued my sources that were reporting on him such as Monica Foster aKa Alexandra Mayers and Desi Foxx aKa Diana Grandmason, he violated there and my privacy rights along with Inventor Eliot Bernstein. Randazza got my phone records, travel information, bank information, home address, names and contacts of customers and clients, information on all my domain names and intellectual property, information on my church mission, wire information, personal private information and contacts and put this in the public domain in legal cases and media to further harass and attack me. All this and he was MY ATTORNEY.

He even bullied, harassed and threatened my friends, clients, ex's, customers, church, insiders, sources and others to get information about me and put fear and intimidation into them.

Marc Randazza DID have and  attorney-client relationship with Counterclaimant" (Blogger Crystal Cox) AND he clearly abused his power and privilege as an officer of the courts and the legal process. As well as used his CLOUT as an attorney to DESTROY my life knowingly with willful and wanton, clear intent in a clear abuse of power and process over a former client.

More on this Topic of Did Marc Randazza Represent Crystal Cox as her attorney or NOT?

http://investigativeblogger.blogspot.com/2014/12/marc-randazza-again-admits-to-have-been.html

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

Bob Garfield of NPR and Bob Garfield is a Randazza Legal Groupie flat out lying about and defaming ME, Crystal Cox. Randazza DID not WIN, he stole my intellectual property and online content.

"The blogger Crystal Cox has also targeted First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza, his wife, and their toddler. Bob spoke to Randazza in the Spring of 2012 about how Cox's actions were testing his free speech values. Since then, Randazza decided to take her to court and won. (He told us this week that his legal strategy had nothing to do with the content of Cox's speech and were instead based on domain law. His court arguments are available upon request, for free, if you ever find yourself in Cox's cross hairs). Randazza also blogs at The Legal Satyricon."

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

BOB Garfield is a LIAR LIAR Pants on FIRE. And did NO Fact Checking

Randazza did NOT WIN, he got an Unconstitutional TRO and STOLE Domain Names. He sued to SHUT ME UP and NOTHING to do with Domain Law. NPR has aided and abetted Marc Randazza to target, harass, criminal defame and bully COX and Randazza was Cox's former attorney.

I Expose BAD GUYS BOB, I do not Extort. I Tell on them. You however aid and abet lawyers and law firms who support human trafficking, racists and pedophiles such as Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group.

Expose the Gang Stalking Group of Attorneys, Law Firms, Judges, Legal Bloggers and Media that aid and abet Marc Randazza. I call them the Randazza Legal Groupis.

A bit More on Marc Randazza Hypocrisy

http://ethicscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/12/marc-randazza-of-randazza-legal-group.html

http://randazzalegalgroupies.blogspot.com/2014/12/first-amendment-attorney-marc-randazza.html

Check out the Full Docket Below of Randazza v. Cox and the Counterclaim of Defamation and Malpractice against  Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group 
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group has been sued by Blogger Crystal Cox for Malpractice and Defamation. Marc J. Randazza claims he did not represent Crystal Cox.

Blogger Crystal Cox Sued attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group for Malpractice and Defamation. Marc Randazza claims under oath to the courts, and as an officer of the court being an attorney, that he did NOT represent Crystal Cox.


In an admitted conversation with Eugene Volokh, Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group agreed to "bow out", If I wanted Eugene Volokh UCLA Law Professor to represent me in the case. 

So in this private conversation between them and without my, the clients, knowledge or consent, the questions begs "Why would he have to "bow out" if he did not believe he was my attorney or was not acting as my attorney" ?

Why would one attorney tell another attorney they will bow out of a case if they have no representation of the person they are claiming they will "bow out" in regard to? Or connection to the case?

An attorney would not have to "bow out" and STOP his negotiations if he did not think he was representing that person, that "client".

Attorney Marc Randazza DID represent Crystal Cox, me, and he did act unethically, and I allege illegally and he violated my constitutional rights and rights as a client.



Below you See Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group stating that he told Eugene Volokh he would "bow out". 

You also CLEARLY see that Randazza was talking of a "settlement" being in my best interest and of allowing Volokh to co-counsel. 

Yet Randazza CLAIMS he did not Represent Me, Crystal Cox


INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

Did you have phone conversations with Eugene Volokh and state that you represented Cox and discuss with him your strategy, or a deal you were trying to make with the opposition, Plaintiff’s attorney David Aman?




RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

"Counterdefendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not limited in time and scope, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Counterdefendant further objects because this interrogatory is in excess of the 25 allowable
interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result,
Counterdefendant is not required to respond to the same. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Counterdefendant responds as follows:

Counterdefendant spoke with Eugene Volokh in December 2011. 

Randazza informed Volkokh that if he was going to represent Cox, that Randazza would gladly "bow out", and defer to Volokh to handle the case.

Volokh, however, said that he would prefer that Randazza co-counsel the case with him due to Volokh’s stated lack of litigation experience. Counterdefendant and Volokh discussed possible strategies that he and Volokh thought might be good ideas during that call.

Counterdefendant and Volokh both discussed the fact that Cox’s interests would be better served through settlement."

Source ( Page 18 )
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiM0hkaW9IYVV2VGc/view?usp=sharing

(Riddled with Lots of Other LIES, more on that Later)



Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group not only agrees to "bow out" but admits to be in a negotiation with Eugene Volokh to Co-Counsel. 

What gave Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group that special power and privilege, that client / attorney privilege, if he did not believe he was already representing me, Crystal Cox? 

How could he legally or ethically offer to co-counsel with Volokh on my behalf, if he did not represent me and without my, the CLIENTS, specific permission?

Also, why would Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group discuss co-counsel with Eugene Volokh if he had not already told Eugene Volokh that he represented me, Crystal Cox?

Why in the world would Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group discuss a "settlement" with Eugene Volokh as admitted above, if he did not believe he was representing me, Crystal Cox or acting as my attorney? 

Marc Randazza clearly admits to discussing that a settlement is best for me, and seemingly who cares what I, the client thinks. He admits to being my counsel and saying he will bow out. He offers to allow Volokh to co-counsel. And yet tells the courts he did not represent me, Crystal Cox? Really? WOW.

You clearly see above, Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group admitting to negotiating on behalf of Cox, in a way to see if a "deal" could be made with the Plaintiff in my case. 

Yet Marc Randazza did not get my permission to do so nor tell me the deal. He took my strategy, led me to believe I could trust him then went to the other side in my case and tried to make a deal that I DID NOT WANT. 

If he was not engaged in all of the above as my attorney than under what power, privilege and authority was he doing this?

More eMails, Discovery, Declarations, 
Motions and information on the 
"Did Marc Randazza Represent Crystal Cox" Saga 


Coming SOON.


More on the Hypocrisy of Attorney Marc Randazza
http://randazzalegalgroupies.blogspot.com/2014/12/first-amendment-attorney-marc-randazza.html

Check out the Full Docket Below of Randazza v. Cox and the Counterclaim of Defamation and Malpractice against  Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group 
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group SAYS that Preliminary Injunctions are unconstitutional, they are unlawful prior restraint, they are "patently unconstitutional", they are clearly an "unconstitutional remedy". Especially if there was no prior First Amendment Adjudication.

Let's Look at the RULING and Marc Randazza's 
Big Preliminary Injunction VICTORY

A Bit from Marc Randazza's Victory APPEALING an alleged unconstitutional preliminary injunction against his client. Even though Marc Randazza himself used an unconstitutional preliminary injunction against me, Crystal Cox and stole my search engine ranking, my intellectual property, my blogs and then proceeded to violate my privacy rights, constitutional rights, civil rights and to harass and defame me for years.

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

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


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

The court determined that:

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

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

In Randazza v. Cox there was no "substantial likelihood of ultimately prevailing on the
merits of their claims" and there certainly was no First Amendment Adjudication BEFORE Plaintiff Marc Randazza seized Blogger Crystal Cox's intellectual property.

See the Link Below that shot down all of Plaintiff Randazza's unsupported causes of action
in a Denial of a Summary Judgement in Randazza v. Cox
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

The Ruling Goes on to Say;

"A temporary injunction “should be granted only sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proved facts entitling it to relief.” Liberty Fin. Mortg. Corp. v. Clampitt, 667 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)."
3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf

Yet attorney, Plaintiff Marc Randazza proved NO FACTS in Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein, yet he filed gag orders, injunctions, stole blogs, shut down sites, and even redirected my blogs to a post on his blog defaming and lying about me. Why do the courts protect Marc Randazza when he is clearly violating law and the constitutional rights of his victims?


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

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

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

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

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

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

Source of Ruling


Yet Plaintiff Marc Randazza was easily GRANTED an unconstitutional preliminary injunction against Blogger Crystal Cox and iViewit inventor Eliot Bernstein, why?

Well connected First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza FLAT OUT lied about me, perjured himself over and over and Judge Gloria Navarro took him at his word and NO PROOF and stole my search engine ranking, my intellectual property, my work product and caused me irreparable harm to myself, my business and my relationships.

Here is the Unconstitutional TRO Filing  (Randazza Filing)
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.2.0.pdf

Added Flat out Lies to TRO  (Randazza Filing)
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.6.0.pdf

REPLY with more Lies and Attacks regarding the TRO  (Randazza Filing)
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.12.0.pdf

Another REPLY (Randazza Filing)
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.28.0.pdf

ORDER by Judge Gloria Navarro GRANTING Unconstitutional TRO / Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Defendant Blogger Crystal Cox in favor of Marc Randazza.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.14.0.pdf

Another ORDER by Judge Gloria Navarro GRANTING Unconstitutional TRO / Motion for Preliminary Injunction Just in case the FIRST ONE was not heard.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.41.0.pdf


My, Defendant Crystal Cox's Response and Objection to Unconstitutional TRO / Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Defendant Crystal Cox's  Objection
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.29.0.pdf

Defendant Crystal Cox's  REPLY to Response
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.30.0.pdf

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



Other Preliminary Injunctions Judge Gloria Navarro Gave Randazza Legal Group
even though they are allegedly "Rare" and Unconstitutional 



"ViaView, Inc. v. Chanson et al"

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

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

Source


In SOME Cases, a Preliminary Injunction is Unconstitutional and Marc Randazza DEFENDS that position. Yet he used an unconstitutional Injunction to steal my work product, my intellectual property, my search engine ranking and my online content.


Preliminary Injunction are Unconstitutional Depending on Which Side your Attorney is On.

Opening Brief in the Irina Chevaldina Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Attorney Marc Randazza. 


In the District of Nevada, Judge Gloria Navarro's court, the Most Important thing is the Attorneys Pay Check, and the Law, the Constitutional Rights of Defendants, Due Process seems to be Irrelevant.

Judge Gloria Navarro seems to CLEARLY favors Randazza Legal Group as far as I see it.

These attorneys sue whoever they want, they get their attorney fees, intellectual property, fines paid to them and what ever they want in the MAGICAL Land La La Lawless Land of Judge Gloria Navarro of District of Nevada. 

More Research Links on that Topic



Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited




"The Plaintiff has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims sufficient for the Court to issue a limited Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement and inducement of copyright infringement. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)

To show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must show that: (1) it owns the copyright to which its infringement claims relate; and, (2) Defendants violated one of the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the works. See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991);

Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2010); Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir 1977); Educational Testing Servs. v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533, 538 (3d Cir. 1977). These two factors have been clearly established by the Plaintiff."

Source of Above Judge Gloria Navarro RULING Favoring the SAME Plaintiff


Marc Randazza does not and did NOT have "substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim". Yet he was favored over his TARGET / his Victims.

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

It sure seems to VIOLATE the Rights of the Targets, the Defendants in some sort of pattern of "shakedown", in my Opinion

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




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

I get threats of death, violence and Judge Gloria Navarro IGNORES my Real Emergency. Yet Gloria Navarro allows Randazza Legal Group to abuse the process and get emergency protective orders and Injunctions.

Frozen Accounts, Preliminary Injunctions, FORCED Attorney Fees and whatever Randazza Legal Group wants they get, WHY?

"Section 505 of the Copyright Act grants district courts discretion to award “
a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs"

Randazza Legal Group sues their TARGET, and the Judge Forces their VICTIM to PAY the ATTORNEYS outrageous Fee's.  And if you Don't Judge Gloria Navarro will Freeze your Accounts. Pattern and History, I THINK SO.. in my NON-Attorney OPINION.

Don't Forget Liberty Media Holdings allegedly is infringing on the iViewit Technology and many companies owned, at least in part by Liberty Media Holdings are named in iViewit Technology. Randazza SUED Eliot Bernstein and got a Preliminary Injunction against him as well, with NO First Amendment Adjudication.

The Full Hypocritical Filing of Marc Randazza Regarding the 
Unconstitutional actions of Preliminary Injunctions.
Page 8 of above;

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

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

                      WOW, "the injunction is patently unconstitutional", it is "unlawful prior restraint", EXCEPT for when Marc Randazza uses it against a Blogger he wants to SUPPRESS the SPEECH of.
                
Page 10

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

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

All that money to seek a "clearly unconstitutional remedy"? And Marc Randazza defends the opposite position he took to constitutionally violate Crystal Cox an Eliot Bernstein?

Full Hypocritical Motion Linked Below

Attorney Marc Randazza sought a "clearly unconstitutional remedy , "injunction ..prior to any court determination" from Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein, even though that "speech" was protected under the First Amendment and with NO First Amendment Adjudication. 

Randazza Legal Group, Marc Randazza stole massive online content, work product, intellectual property and used the lawsuit to violate my privacy rights, harass me, defame me, lie about me, harass me and to post private emails, get my bank account and wire records, harass and bully my church, threaten my ex's, get private proprietary business information from customers and clients and to put me and my sources under constant attack, threats, stalking, harassing, bullying and defaming for over 2 years now and counting. He did this as an "officer of the court". Clearly abusing his power.


Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group are
CLEARLY acting outside of the Law and are Violating
the rights of citizens every single day.

And they are using Judges, Attorneys, 
Investigators, Officers of the Court, and Thugs to do it,
in my Opinion.

EXPOSE Randazza Legal Group.

I say Indict Marc Randazza, J. Malcom DeVoy,
Michael Whiteacre, Ronald Green, Sean Thomas, 
and others I ALLEGE are acting in Civil and Criminal 
Conspiracy with them every single day.


Some More Fun on Preliminary Injunctions and Marc Randazza
http://crystalcoxmedia.blogspot.de/2013/03/pro-se-litigant-investigative-blogger.html


Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group had NO CASE against Crystal Cox or Eliot Bernstein, as is easily seen in the Denial of a Summary Judgement which CLEARLY shoots down every cause of action of the Plaintiff as a matter of LAW.


More on that at the Link Below
http://ethicscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/12/randazza-v-cox-lanham-act-trademark.html


Here is the RULING that Denied the Summary Judgement
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Did Alan B. Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose know of the murder allegations in the Simon Bernstein Estate? Was he involved somehow? Why Is Alan Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose Boca Raton still representing Ted Bernstein? Surely there must be massive liability and conflict of interest by now.

"Murder of Chairman of Iviewit Simon Bernstein? Attorneys Robert Spallina & Donald Tescher Admit Law Firm Violated Law 

On, September 13, 2013 Simon Bernstein died and his son, Theodore Bernstein, claimed he died from poisoning and pointed the finger at Simon's girlfriend!

Murder of Chairman of Iviewit Simon Bernstein? Attorneys Robert Spallina & Donald Tescher Admit Law Firm Violated Law
For information re the sudden and unexpected death of Simon L. Bernstein see W. Palm Beach Coroner # 12-093 @ & Sheriff Report # 12121312, see SHERIFF CORONER REPORTS.

Months after Simon’s death it was learned the Law Office of Tescher & Spallina, PA committed forgery & fraudulently notarized documents for 5 of Simon’s children & one for Simon POST MORTEM. The documents then used as part of an elaborate plan to improperly close the estate of Simon’s predeceased wife Shirley & change beneficiaries and fiduciaries.

The Fraudulent documents were posited with the Court & beneficiaries. Simon acting as Executor/PR was then improperly used to close the estate of Shirley months after he was dead.

In a September 13, 2013 hearing, Transcript (p.16) before Hon. Judge Martin Colin of the 15th Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach, upon learning of the illegal activity, announced to Theodore Bernstein acting as a Fiduciary and his counsel, Spallina, also acting as a fiduciary that he had enough evidence of their crimes at that moment to read them their Miranda rights, twice! Shirley's Estate was then reopened by Judge Colin.

Kimberly Moran, a legal assistant & notary public for the law office of Tescher & Spallina, PA was later arrested by PBSO Sheriffs and sentenced for the fraudulent notarization. She admitted to forging six signatures, including POST MORTEM for Simon. See CNN Report

After months of misleading the Court and Beneficiaries as to the extent of their crimes, while being investigated in January of 2014 by Sheriffs, Robert Spallina, Esq. admitted to investigators he intentionally fraudulently altered a trust document for Shirley & used it to change beneficiaries to benefit his client Theodore & his sister Pamela Simon, both had been disinherited from their parents estates & trusts.

Simon & Shirley were initial seed investors in Iviewit Holdings, Inc., prior to funding by Wayne Huizenga, former Chairman of Blockbuster & Miami Dolphins owner, and they held a 30% interest in the Iviewit companies and patents filed for the groundbreaking technologies. The technologies heralded by leading engineers from Intel, SGI and Lockheed, Warner Bros., AOL, SONY and others as “Holy Grail” inventions that revolutionized the digital world, worth billions upon billions.

Inventor, Eliot Bernstein, son of Simon & Shirley has claimed his former Patent Attorneys from Proskauer Rose, LLP & Foley & Lardner, LLP converted the patent royalties to themselves through patent pooling schemes like MPEG. Eliot Bernstein’s family auto was car bombed and death threats levied against him, leading to a riveting RICO fed lawsuit filed in the NY Southern District under the tutelage of the Hon Shira Scheindlin who then legally related Bernstein’s RICO to a NY Supreme Court Attorney, Christine C. Anderson, Esq. whistleblower lawsuit. Anderson revealed a mass of corruption in the NY courts, prosecutorial offices and NY Attorney Conduct regulatory departments. Recent news shows the cases legally related to Anderson were obstructed & citizens like Anderson were illegally monitored 24/7/365 for years using unauthorized & illegal wiretaps and more to obstruct their cases. Judges and others were also wiretapped, see the iviewit homepage for more and Motion to Rehear for more.

Are the Attorneys at Law accused of stealing the inventions of Iviewit involved in the Estates of Simon and Shirley and perhaps MURDER of Simon, the answer is yes, see @ Iviewit Petition & the Ted Bernstein Report .

The Lawsuits ongoing are at the 15th Judicial in Palm Beach County and Federal Court are:

Simon # 502012CP004391XXXXSB – Hon. David French, transferred to Hon. Martin Colin

Shirley # 502011CP000653XXXXSB – Hon. Martin Colin

Shirley Trust # 502014CP003698XXXXSB - Colin

Oppenheimer Lawsuit # 502011CP00653XXXXSB - Colin

Illinois Life Insurance Lawsuit – Fed Northern District of IL, Hon. Judge Amy St. Eve # 13-cv-03643

The cases are being heard and both Donald R. Tescher, Esq. and Robert L. Spallina, Esq. have been removed from the cases as Fiduciaries and Counsel and resigned from any matters involving the Bernstein family. Ongoing legal actions are in both state and federal, civil and criminal proceedings for a plethora of alleged other felony misconduct in attempts to steal millions of dollars of Simon and Shirley’s Estates and Trusts. Theodore Bernstein is now represented by Alan B. Rose, Esq. of the law firm Page, Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose, P.A.



The question of if Simon Bernstein was murdered and who did it, how and why, to be answered soon...

Source
http://www.free-press-release.com/news-murder-of-chairman-of-iviewit-simon-bernstein-attorneys-robert-spallina-donald-tescher-admit-law-firm-violated-law-1416660900.html

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

oh so it's the Cambridge dude, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology that emailed Ken White of Brown, White & Newhouse LLP

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Search Referral:https://www.google.com/ (Keywords Unavailable) 
Host Name:Browser:Chrome 38.0
IP Address:18.189.108.26 — [Label IP Address]Operating System:Win7
Location:Cambridge, Massachusetts, United StatesResolution:1920x1080
Returning Visits:0Javascript:Enabled
Visit Length:10 secondsISP:Massachusetts Institute Of Technology

Navigation Path

DateTimeWebPage
  https://www.google.com/ (Keywords Unavailable) 
18 Nov11:52:11
  https://www.google.com/ (Keywords Unavailable) 
18 Nov11:52:11
18 Nov11:52:21

"Troll Down: The Fight Against Big Porn and their Legal Trolls" ; Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com and Brown of White & Newhouse LLP

For Some Reason Brown of White & Newhouse LLP is very interested in this today. Someone even emailed them a link to my blog that talked about it 2 years ago. So what's up Brown of White & Newhouse LLP and Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com ? What don't you like about this online article?

"Kenneth White: Defender of Logs, Grade A Hypocrite

Ken White is another mafia-funded Big Porn goon who is the co-counsel to Marc Randazza (If Randazza is Tony Soprano, think of Ken as Salvatore Bonpensiero).

He notably engages in hypocritical behaviors which consist of, but are not limited to:

1. Calling out Crystal Cox for attacking Marc Randazza as a parent – and then doing the same thing to Chance Trahan.

2. An ‘offensive’ website that publishes images of real women naked is scum, but a bunch of ‘offensive’ logs, coal and dirt constitutes ‘art’.

3.  Marc Randazza’s defense of Manwin and Porn Valley in numerous civil cases is “first amendment protection”, but posting amateur pictures of real adults (who were not paid any money) is obviously terrible!

4.  Accusing us of profiting from people’s pain and suffering (which really is completely and entirely untrue to begin with, but I’ll roll with your premise as a hypothetical), when you work as a lawyer. Without pain and suffering, you have no clients. It’s perfectly okay for you to get paid to heal them, but when we do it, it’s terrible and wrong? Come off it. Those people transmit their pictures via the public internet.

5. Out of all the Latin phrases you could’ve picked, yours is the most homosexual in nature (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course) – the ram touches the wall? From the era of the Greeks and Romans? I’m awaiting for you and Randazza to announce that you will be coming out of the closet any second, Ken.  Be it as you have chosen “murum aries attigit” – I will choose the only valid response. Sic semper tyrannis.

6.  I don’t live my life with regrets. Apparently, you do. Your 6th major mistake is the idea that I have to explain anything about MY LIFE to anyone. How do you justify your background in representing the mafia, porn valley, and drug money? Perhaps you should show your children some of the films made by the people that you and Mr. Randazza have represented (which are far more hardcore than anything on our website), hand them an 8-ball and tell them to take a hit, or show them pictures of people who were killed by the mob or street gangs.

7. There is no moral high ground in this battle, and yet you still cling to your false moralism. Obviously, you’ve never done anything that would morally offend anyone, in your entire life. Not only are you a lawyer, you’re a saint, which explains all of the Catholic imagery on your website. And yet, I don’t see a single endorsement from any bishops, priests, dioceses, archdioceses, cardinals, patriarchs, etc. I fully believe that the papacy should also sue you, but unlike you, they’re actually doing the work of God, and thus are too busy to work for the Porn Valley mafia.

8. Either you still have that outdated belief of people as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ OR, more than likely, you’re playing on the naivete of the commoners again. How can you use a phrase from Antony as your motto – and then lecture me about good and evil? You’re a jaded cynic, just like me, and you’re fueled by money. You’d do anything or say anything to win. There’s no morality here. This is a dogfight.


9. We will teach our children not to take naked pictures of themselves, of course. Not to trust scumbag lawyers, not to live in a dump like California or Nevada.  Not to do drugs, and not to waste their lives. However, we’re also going to teach them everything we know about the world – your sons and daughters will contend with ours, for all eternity. Right? Wrong? Admirable? To who? At the end of the day, all of the morals in the world don’t fill stomachs, they don’t build homes, they don’t save lives. If you want to make an omelette, you must crack a few eggs. You know this as well as I do – it fits your modus operandi as much as it does mine. Jesus wandered in the desert and lived in complete poverty – I’m not much for that, sorry. Perhaps I’d believe you if you donated all of your earnings to a good cause, like, say, Hurricane Sandy, and lived out the rest of your life in a monastery. Some days, I think about it myself.

10.  You’ve continually stated the idea that our website is based on cruelty and abuse or some sort of revenge. Hunter Moore’s was. Eric Chanson’s is. Our website is not. It’s solely about the profit. We post people’s naked pictures for advertising revenue.

Not only is it not fun (looking at a bunch of naked people that I really have no attraction to – including many images of men), it’s time-consuming (administrating a server, as well as hours of behind-the-scenes work to make sure the ship stays afloat). I tried for years, and years, and years – to build any kind of successful business – and you are right, I was not good at it. I failed as a musician, as a karaoke builder/host, I failed as a writer, I failed as a salesman, I failed at a great many things. And now that I’ve achieved some margin of success, the competition wants to take that success away from me.

Finally, after 28 years of life, I have a real business that makes me money, I might actually be able to afford to have my teeth fixed, to deal with my countless health issues (including migraines, panic attacks and somatic disorder), I might actually be able to afford food and shelter of my own instead of being dependent. And you, who have lived high on the lamb for decades, don’t like the idea that I might actually get out from below the poverty line, because I’m taking that money from your employers in Porn Valley.

You know what Randazza offered me? $2,500. For the first successful business that I’ve ever built in my naturally born life. I told him, if the number was right, I’d gladly shut down the website and never look back – but you know, as a high-priced porn valley lawyer, that $2,500 is nothing. You can’t feed a family with that money.

Here’s an idea. If you’ve got 40 people on your side, and you all offer me $2,500 each, I’ll shut all of it down. ($2,500 x 40 = $100,000). I would then take the money, purchase a business that has nothing to do with porn (like a restaurant or a bar) and live out the rest of my days working at that gig. In fact, that’s actually the plan with our website now – once I make enough money, I can purchase the businesses I really want to own. It’s SOLELY about money, not revenge or cruelty or anything else.

11. The idea that our site picks on women. For one, that’s entirely false. You managed to pick a few abusive comments, but the majority of the comments on our website are actually compliments from appreciative viewers. In fact, the only reason that most people want to be removed from the website is that their employers are deciding to terminate them from their jobs in a lot of cases.

THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU SHOULD BE GOING AFTER. A boss who fires someone because of naked pictures on the internet. A general public that frowns upon nudity and open expression of sexuality.

For two, there’s a lot of men pictured on our website as well. That should tell you that our website is equal opportunity. So, rather than suggesting we’re bullying women, why don’t you tell the people the truth about the men that are posted on our site (or do you not care about them because they don’t fall into your ‘misogyny’ angle)? Furthermore, your associates have found naked pictures of me.

You can’t portray me as someone who would ‘not like it if someone did this to them’ because I’ve had it done to me.  It hurt – for about 3 days. Then they stopped caring and moved on. Which leads me to…

12. Eventually you and Randazza will stop caring and move on as well. There’s nothing you can do. We’re not doing anything illegal. Your employers paid you for a witch hunt.

Tell Marc Randazza to reveal who is really paying him for this – it’s probably his good buddies at Manwin. Same with you, Ken – reveal your clients instead of standing up the ‘victims’ for permanent ridicule from a frivolous lawsuit.   You’re using them on behalf of Big Porn/Porn Valley.

13. I’m not a racist, sexist, misogynist, or anything else. That would imply I specifically target people of a certain background. I’m a misanthrope, who doesn’t like people in general. I have good reason to hate people for no reason at all. I only make exceptions to the general rule (my family and a few close friends, like Chance). Everyone else? They never helped me.

Why should I feel bad about what they’ve done to themselves? I’ve turned it into a successful business. Kudos to me. You, on the other hand, are Catholic. Do the words ‘Holy Roman Empire’ mean anything to you? What about ‘Spanish Inquisition’? ‘The Crusades’?  Exactly, it’s okay when you and your people do things like that, but God forbid that I make money off of naked pictures!

14.  Posting old pictures of me and stuff I did years ago. You don’t post pictures of yourself when you were 19, Ken. All of that stuff is old. When you examine it in depth, you’re forced to realize that it’s not 2002, it’s not 2003, it’s not 2004 or 2005. It’s 2012. Rather than suggesting that I was just a born villain – why not take a look at what I gave up to get what I have? I’ve never had a decent job or a decent girlfriend in my entire life.

Now, I have a decent business – which obviously has to be illegal in your opinion, even though people have been doing what I do for years, and I’m not the first, and I won’t be the last, which generally means that the precedent is on my side, and that all of this is legal and legit – and you wonder why I’m upset? Nonsense.

You’re getting paid by Porn Valley to target me. This isn’t about your moral convictions or some higher ground, this is a dogfight, it’s a battle between sharks, there’s no good or evil here, it’s just the scumbags on our team versus the scumbags on yours. I’m not holier-than-thou about it, and you shouldn’t be either.

You send a shark to face another shark, a wolf for a wolf, a tiger for a tiger. You have the same mindset as the majority of the USA (and the world, for that matter) – you want to get something done, but you don’t want to get your hands dirty. How lazy and naive. And yet you accuse me of entitlement, I’ll assure you there’s none of that here. Nobody owes me anything. What I do is hard. It hurts on the inside, and on the outside. Massive amounts of stress and lost sleep. Unending pain and further loss of hope for humanity than I ever thought was possible.

These people do it to themselves – they are not sweet, innocent people looking for relationships, they’re looking for casual sex. A lot of them are already married. What does the Catholic church say about being married, and then looking for threesomes or casual sex on Craigslist? Sending naked pictures to total strangers, often in the first email, or outright posting them on the ad itself? I assure you that every one pictured on our website posted all of that information publicly, and thus consented from the very start. If you did not want people to see your naked pictures, you would not take them, or at the very least you would not send them.

Here’s to a glorious battle between two teams of great sharks – Is Anybody Down, Craig Brittain, Chance Trahan, Crystal Cox, Monica Foster, our legal team, all independent small business owners, all true defenders of free speech and expression, all proud citizens of the USA, anyone who isn’t voting for Obama, our friends and supporters, everyone who has submitted content to our website, everyone who loves our website, vs. Porn Valley, organized crime, Randazza Legal, Ken White, Adam Steinbaugh or whoever else you can dig up, the fall guys/girls that have to have their names listed on whatever frivolous suit you file, the liberal left, the religious extremists, and all of the people who want us to starve so we can’t feed, clothe or shelter ourselves or our families.

We are proud of what we do. If we didn’t, someone else would – we’re the very best at it. Hunter Moore won’t build a new website, and no one has any interest in Eric Chanson.

We will not falter nor surrender. Nemo me impune lacessit."

Source
https://web.archive.org/web/20121117120526/http://www.trolldown.com/2012/11/03/kenneth-white-defender-of-logs-grade-a-hypocrite/