Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Bitterroot Rising Archives posted by Crystal L. Cox Investigative Blogger; A Hamilton Montana Anti-Corruption Blog, Reporting, I believe by Michael Spreadbury Montana Man who STOOD up to Police Brutality, Death By Cop, Over reaching and Lawless Cops and Prosecutors in the State of Montana.

Bitterroot Rising Archive 1

Death by Cop, Police Brutality, Montana Rape Culture, Abusive Montana Cops and Prosecuters; Beneath the Beauty Documentary

Montana Corrupt Cops Protected; Beneath The Beauty Interview in Full with Crystal L. Cox Montana Investigative Blogger

Ferguson Documents


Sunday, November 23, 2014

"MarcRandazza.com Domain Name Dispute. Marc Randazza and the Czech Arbitration Court Domain Name Dispute. Marc Randazza thinks he is above the Law and can take whatever he WANTS. Regardless of the Law or the Constitutional Rights of others. Expose Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group"

"Marc Randazza is a self proclaimed First Amendment Attorney, and many believe Marc Randazza is an advocate of Free Speech. Marc Randazza has very good connections regarding who to pay, and how to play within the First Amendment Bar and the Free Speech Laws, but Marc Randazza is no Champion of the First Amendment.

Marc Randazza has done all he can to turn on the Free Speech Rights of a woman whom he wanted to represent in a major Free Speech Case and whom turned him down because he treated her badly.

I am that woman and since this time, nearly a year ago now, Marc Randazza has stolen domain names, filed protective orders, got entire blogs at wordpress and blogger deleted with no warning and has used his power and connections to attack my Free Speech Rights, and stomp on the First Amendment Rights of All.

Marc Randazza has threatened me, conspired to set me up with criminal charges, painted me in False Light, lied about me to Forbes, defamed me, incited a lynch mob against me, and all because Marc Randazza did not approve of a Domain Name I purchased and I rejected Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group as my Attorney.

I want to sue Marc Randazza for painting me in false light, for defamation, for lying to major media and therefore causing harm to my income potential, endangering my life, causing me duress and more. If you an attorney who is NOT afraid of Marc Randazza, please email me Crystal L. Cox to represent me in a suing Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group.

Marc Randazza, appears to me to have mafia ties and is VERY Dangerous.

Marc Randazza is knowledgeable in First Amendment Laws and has many connections, affiliations and conflicts of interest.  Marc Randazza uses this knowledge in order to get his clients and potential clients to bend to his will.

Marc Randazza is a very dangerous man and is connected to stalkers in the Porn Industry whom threaten Porn Stars.  Marc Randazza threatened one of my sources in a private forum, she therefore stopped speaking about Marc Randazza.  Marc Randazza told where she lived, what she drove and wished death upon her.

Marc Randazza is not a good man and must be Exposed. Email me at SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com to Expose Marc Randazza and to Parody Marc Randazza.

Two New Blogs will Expose Marc Randazza

ExposeMarcRandazza.com  and MarcRandazzaParody.com

Below is a Letter eMailed to me Regarding my Rights to Own MarcRandazza.com - Marc Randazza, King of Free Speech Suppression, steals Domain Names and Intellectual Property that Marc Randazza was to dumb to buy or to build. And Marc Randazza will relentless attack you if you demand your First Amendment Rights.

""Dear Crystal,

You and I share a common enemy. I hate that copyright troll shit Marc Randazza. I saw that he filed a domain name dispute against you in the CAC. I am pretty sure that the connection he has with the Czech Republic is that his wife is Czech. Since he obviously has some sort of criminal ties, I wouldn't be shocked if it was that far-reaching.

At any rate, I've dealt with these kinds of things before, and I thought I would offer you a bit of help since I know first-hand how expensive these things can get. I got a copy of his complaint, and I did a lot of research for you and put together a response for you to argue to the CAC that the complaint against you should be dismissed. I hope that it helps you out. Good luck to you.


Complainant Marc Randazza has improperly filed a UDRP complaint with the Czech Arbitration Center. Jurisdiction in the CAC is not proper because neither the respondent nor the complainant have ties to the Czech Republic. In addition, Complainant Marc Randazza has ties to illegal activity and Ms. Cox has a right to freedom of speech.

In late 2011, complainant Marc Randazza approached respondent, Ms. Crystal Cox, about representing her in an appeal of a judgment against her in the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Randazza then went behind Ms. Cox's back and began speaking with the opposing party without Ms. Cox's permission, and Ms. Cox terminated their professional relationship. Cox has absolute evidence that Randazza conspired to set her up in a criminal case and that he conspired with the corrupt judge in the case so that her rights would be violated. For this reason alone, the complaint must be dismissed. 

Randazza has known ties to organized crime, is a criminal, and is suspected of participation in a number of unethical acts. He has been a representative of the pornography industry, thus demonstrating a lack of moral character. In his representation of pornographers, he has set up Gay teenagers for suicide, has extorted millions of dollars from innocent parties, and uses his law license as a tool of cyber bullying, terrorism, and criminal activity. This prosecution is the latest in a long line of his incredible acts of moral turpitude and crime. Not only should the complaint be denied, but the Czech Arbitration Court should impose sanctions upon Randazza under Czech Code which provides for sanctions of attorneys who bring frivolous actions against innocent parties. 

1. Elliot Bernstein is not a proper party to this case.

Elliot Bernstein is not a proper party to this case, and for that reason the claims should be denied. Bernstein is the registered name owner of two of the domain names, but as the Court can see, Cox is the publisher of them. BUT, the actual case has to be brought against the real name holder or the party in interest, but it is up to the Complainant to make that distinction. Under ICANN Rule, Randazza could have simply asked Bernstein to reveal the underlying owner, and Bernstein would have done so. But, since Randazza was too lazy to do this, his complaint has a fatal flaw that can never be overcome. 

2. Jurisdiction in the Czech Republic is not proper because neither party meets the sufficient minimal contacts test.

Due Process requires that, in order for a forum to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that "he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend „traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.‟" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310, 316 (1945). Because neither Randazza nor Cox reside in the Czech Republic, this court has no jurisdiction over either of them, nor over this dispute. 

The Supreme Court of the United States (A country of which both Randazza and Cox are citizens) has held that before a court has the power to exert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that defendant must "Purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). 

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires certain "minimum contacts" between a nonresident defendant and the forum state in order that "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," are not offended. See International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). This "Purposeful Availment Test" examines whether the defendant's voluntary actions reasonably and foreseeably create liability in the forum state. See World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). This Test protects a defendant from being haled into another state (or country's) court unjustly. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76 (citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984); World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 299 (1980)).

The minimum contacts constitutional requirement serves two objectives: "[I]t protects against the burdens of litigation in a distant or inconvenient forum" unless the defendants contacts to the forum state make it just and fair to force him or her to defend a cause of action, and "it acts to ensure that the states, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as co-equal sovereigns in a federal system." See World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980). 

Plaintiff Randazza seeks exactly what the due process clause prohibits, a discard of any notion of due process in order to punitively subject the Cox to litigation in an inconvenient forum. 


As noted above, the Plaintiff's position demonstrates a a desire to continue unethical behavior to set up the Defendant. Randazza might thing that due process is not due to Cox, this is not the case in real life or on the Internet. Using technology to lead to "the eventual demise on all restrictions on the personal jurisdiction" can not stand. See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 250-51 (1958) (citing Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877), and International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). To determine jurisdiction in the Internet age, the Court must recognize that the Internet is not restricted by distance or state boundaries. See, e.g., Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 851 (1997) ("Cyberspace is accessible to anyone, located anywhere, with an Internet connection"). 

The world wide nature of Internet use makes it a unique mode of communication unlike newspapers, mail, radio, television, and other media. See Millennium Enterprises, Inc. v. Millennium Music, LP, 33 F.Supp.2d 907, 914(D. Or. 1999). Speech on the Internet targets no jurisdiction in particular and everyone in any geographic location. See Id. 

Given Internet, and the special position granted to matters of free speech, the Court must recognize that this case touches upon time-worn legal issues in a manner not thoroughly resolved the existing law. See generally, David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 STAN. L. REV. 1367, 1370 (1996) ("Cyberspace has no territorial based boundaries, because of the cost and speed of message transmission on the Internet is almost entirely independent of physical location"). 

Even if an internet speaker sought to avoid jurisdiction in a certain country, there is little to nothing that he could do in order to limit his Website's accessibility in a selected state where the publisher may wish to avoid jurisdiction. See Geoffrey Nunberg, The Internet Filter Farce, found at http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/1/nunberg-g.html. (January 1, 2001) (Discussing the limitations and failures of filtering technology) (last visited, October 17, 2004). 


The predominant pre-internet test for jurisdiction, occasionally relied upon in the internet context is the effects test as established by Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). In this case, an editor and a writer for the National Enquirer, both residents of Florida, were sued in California for libel arising out of an article published in The Enquirer about Shirley Jones, a resident of California. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The United States Supreme Court upheld the determination of personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they had "expressly aimed" their conduct towards California. Id. at 789. 

Relying on the fact that The Enquirer had its largest circulation in California, distributing over 600,000 copies of its publication in that state, the court noted that the defendants knew the harm of their allegedly tortuous activity would be felt there. Id. at 789-90. 

A key distinction in the case at bar is that the The National Enquirer was availing itself of the privilege of operating in California, as it shipped 600,000 copies into that state. 

The National Enquirer purposefully availed itself of the business of doing business in California when it delivered both subscriptions and newsstand copies with a great degree of regularity into that state. If The National Enquirer wished to avoid the likelihood of being haled into a California court, the publication could simply cease publication in California, but its publication in all 49 other states would be unfettered. 

If this court were to accept a simplistic interpretation of Calder in an Internet context, a nonresident defendant would always be subject to jurisdiction in the Czech Arbitration Court simply because the plaintiff's wanted to bring a claim in the Czech Arbitration Court. See, e.g., Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. 

Power Co., 253 F.3d 865 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, given the nature of the internet, the only way to avoid jurisdiction in any country would be to not speak on matters critical of any entity in any other country - an end result that would chill free speech to an extent impermissible by the First Amendment. This would, in effect, result in this Court licensing "one side of a debate to fight free style, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules." See R.A.V. v. City of Saint Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). 

This is a position which is counter to the protections of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment. See Id. Accordingly, if this court chose to apply the effects test, this case should most certainly fail due to the strong distinction between the print medium evaluated in Calder and the internet medium in the case at bar.


Many courts have taken notice of the unique qualities of the Internet when making decisions regarding personal jurisdiction. The most commonly used approach to determine whether purposeful availment exists in a Website context is the so-called "Zippo Test." This Test was originally articulated in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). 

In this case, the Western District of Pennsylvania concluded that "the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet." Id. at 1124.

 The court described a sliding continuum for the evaluation of whether jurisdiction should attach. At one end of this spectrum are defendants that clearly conduct business over the Internet. For example, a defendant that may knowingly and repeatedly transmit computer files over the Internet into a forum state, thus creating jurisdiction. Id. (citing Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996). 

This test has been met with extensive approval in World wide, but especially in Florida, where Randazza's law firm is based out of.   See, e.g., Miller v. Berman, 289 F.Supp.2d 1327 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (applying the Zippo Test and rejecting jurisdiction in circumstances where the defendant published a web page accessible in Florida, but did not regularly conduct business in the State of Florida); Hartoy, Inc., v. Thompson, 2003 WL 21468079 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (unpublished opinion recognizing and applying the Zippo Test); Miami Breakers Soccer Club, Inc., v. Women's United Soccer Ass'n, 140 F.Supp.2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (applying the Zippo Test to a passive Website and rejecting jurisdiction); J.B. Oxford Holdings, Inc., v. Net Trade, Inc., 76 F.Supp.2d 1363, (S.D. Fla. 1999) (applying the Zippo Test and rejecting jurisdiction over a Website that provided the ability for readers to email questions to the defendant, download demonstrations from the defendant, and receive free information about day trading from the defendant). 

At the opposite end of the spectrum are simple passive Websites which are merely accessible by users in all jurisdictions. These passive Websites do little more than make information available to any who may be interested in receiving the information and do not create sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction to attach. See Zippo at 1124 (citing Bensusan Rest Corp. v. King, 937 F.Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). See also Lofton v. Turbine Design, Inc., 100 F.Supp.2d 404, 409 (ND Miss. 2000) (publication of allegedly defamatory material on a website, under the due process clause, does not create sufficient contacts with the forum state since the site was passive and not designed to attract business); Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (web page accessible in the forum state, causing potential harm in the forum state does not create liability in the forum state).

In the middle are interactive Websites where users can exchange information with the host site. In all but the clearest cases, an evaluating court must make a finding that the defendant is somehow expressly targeting internet users in the forum state and not just making itself accessible to everyone. Mere interactivity, without more does not slide the scale toward establishment of minimum contacts. 

See, e.g., Bancroft and Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (Interactivity is insufficient by itself, there must be "express aiming" at forum state); Hy Cite Corp. v. BadBusinessBureau.com, LLC, 297 F.Supp.2d 1154, 1161 (W.D. Wis. 2004). "However the ultimate question remains the same, that is, whether the defendant's contacts with the state are of such quality and nature such that it could reasonably expect to be haled into the courts of the forum state." Id. It is clear that the law does not allow jurisdiction over Crystal Cox in the Czech Republic! Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

The purposeful availment requirement is established if the defendant purposefully creates sufficient minimum contacts with Florida in order to create "a substantial connection" with this state. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76. The whole constitutional reason for "purposeful availment" requirement is so that the decisions of all states have some measure of predictability and notice that they may be subject to suit in a foreign jurisdiction. See World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, at 297 (1980). If citizens believe that the risks of litigation in a fora are too likely, citizens of other states may sever any connection to unfavorable forum states. Id. at 297. 

As discussed above, since Cox is technologically unable to limit where in the world her cyber-journalism and Citizen Journalism would be accessed, it is a pre-internet mode of thinking that the defendant could have severed connection to the Czech Republic to avoid jurisdiction here. This is simply illogical in the context of allowing free-expression to thrive without unreasonably and unlawfully chilling all speech on the internet.
Neither Ms. Cox nor attorney Randazza have the minimum contacts necessary to meet the test described in International Shoe. Attorney Randazza currently lives in Nevada, and his law firm is in Florida (and how that is ethical is uncertain). Ms. Cox is a resident of Montana. Neither of them has a connection to the Czech Republic, and Ms. Cox is certainly not "at home" in the Czech Republic. Therefore, the Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes does not have personal jurisdiction over either party, and filing the complaint in the Czech Republic was not proper. 

2. Because Complainant Marc Randazza has ties to illegal activity, he cannot claim legitimate rights to his name as a famous mark.

The doctrine that plaintiff must come into a court of equity with "clean hands" is a reflection of the equitable nature of trademark law. A plaintiff who requests the assistance of a court of equity must not himself be guilty of inequitable conduct. Furthermore, keeping in mind the equitable nature of trademark rights, "misuse" of those rights is a recognized defense. 

Misuse includes activities that may themselves be the basis of a counterclaim, for example, enforcement of a fraudulently obtained registration, and use in violation of other laws. However, at least one court has stated that trademark misuse cannot be used affirmatively. 

In his complaint, Randazza claims that he has shown that his name is a trademark because he is a public individual. HE IS a public individual, and thus his name might function as a trademark, but his name is also associated with pornography, criminality, slander, and libel. Therefore, under New York Times v. Sullivan, in order for him to win this case, he must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Cox acted with actual malice, knowing that her actions could constitute a violation of law. Since her actions had no violation of law in them, there is no possibility that Randazza can ever prevail over her under this standard. 

Further, because of Randazza's obvious ties with the mafia, he is not using his name in a legitimate manner. Ms. Cox is in fear for her life because of Randazza's ties with the Mafia. Additionally, he has sent out a ring of bloggers and stalkers to harass Ms. Cox constantly. Most notably, someone connected to Randazza threatened to break Ms. Cox's legs in a conspiracy with the well-known criminal, Kenneth White, who is a blatant apologist for Randazza. Therefore, Randazza is not making a legitimate use of his name and should not be entitled to rights to it.

Common antitrust misuse defense alleges that the suit brought by plaintiff was brought in bad faith as part of an attempt to monopolize or restrain trade or to shut down or set up an innocent party. A Plaintiff may try to combat this defense by claiming immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Under this doctrine, the plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts, which immunizes him from antitrust liability based on his filing suit against defendant. 

The immunity conferred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, however, is not absolute. There is an exception to the doctrine known as the "sham exception": if the lawsuit is a mere sham brought to harass a competitor and damage competition, it will not qualify for Noerr-Pennington immunity. Furthermore, a "no sham" ruling does not bar a later malicious prosecution suit based on false testimony not addressed by the court in the initial "no sham" ruling. 

The meaning of the "sham" exception was clarified by the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in the Columbia Pictures case. There, the Court set out a two-part test for sham:

1. the lawsuit must be objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable litigant would realistically expect success on the merits; and

2. the baseless lawsuit must conceal an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor through the use of government process.

Randazza is clearly trying to interefere directly with Cox and her business relationships. As has been demonstrated by Cox on many occasions, Randazza is a criminal minded and unethical attorney. He has conspired to set her up for extortion. He has worked with her enemies while her attorney and violated the sacred oath of attorney client privilege! How can anything ever be as unclean handed and underhanded, and 

3. Because the European Union recognizes freedom of speech, Marc Randazza should not be allowed to take the Disputed Domain Name from Ms. Cox.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Article 11 provides that "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." and "2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected." 

Further, the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 

This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises." This language is similar to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Respondent Ms. Cox is an investigative journalist who has made it her life's work to provide truthful information to the public about individuals who have acted improperly. She has a number of successful blogs where she disseminates this information to the public. She is a whistleblower and an agent of the truth.  COX IS A MINISTER, and thus NOT SUBJECT TO SUIT.

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought against Ministers, as does the Czech Constitution and the United Nations treaty on civil rights. 

Government interference with a Minister is an impermissible mixture of church and state. See Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U. S. 94; Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich,426 U. S. 696. Pp. 10-12.

(c) Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other employment discrimination laws, Courts find that suits against Ministers on matters of religious conviction are can not be maintained. The First Amendment itself, gives special solicitude to the rights of religious clergy members, of which Cox is obviously one (the domains are owned by REVEREND Crystal Cox!) 

Because Cox is a legitimate minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of this claim. The ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation. 


This court should dismiss the complaint because Randazza made an error about the parties, jurisdiction is not proper in the Czech Republic, Randazza is involved with illegal activity, and Ms. Cox has a right to freedom of speech, Cox is a religious minister and thus immune from suit."

Marc Randazza Email was Send to me from a Blog Reader.

Here are a Few more Blogs regarding Marc Randazza, that Marc Randazza has not had deleted or shut down YET, key word being YET.













Posted here by
Investigative Blogger
Reverend Crystal L. Cox
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com "

Originally Posted At

Since this Randazza has STOLE all those Blogs

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...


Thursday, November 20, 2014

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group abuses the power of the courts and abuses the court process to harass, stalk, defame, taunt, ridicule, and seek revenge.

Marc Randazza filed for a restraining order against me, Blogger Crystal Cox, in a Nevada court. This pedophile supporting, gang stalking, human trafficking supporting porn attorney filed for protection against me for speaking critical of him online. Wa Wa.

He withdraw the filing for some reason, either way I could not go to his local court to defend it anyway, as I do not live anywhere near him. Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group has continued to harass me, sue me, defame me, violate my privacy rights and my constitutional rights.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, in my experience is a dangerous man connected to the mafia rumor has it. His clients are the VERY biggest in Porn. He is said to get his way in any court, and well he is above the law and does whatever he pleases to whomever he pleases.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group used a court case against me to further harass and stalk Monica Foster aKa Alexandra Melody and to pry into her personal life. He also named her in the motions and defamed her then had his gang stalking legal blogger buddies taunt, harass, torment and torture her.

Many that are targeted by these THUGS commit suicide, some actually do and some are made to look like suicide from what I have heard over the years.

Then he sued Monica Foster, well his SLUT wife Jennifer Randazza did. Even though Marc Randazza had stated in his case against me that RandazzaNews.com was in my control and I created the Graphic he later sued Monica Foster for creating. Even though it is CLEAR that it was a parody and art and protected by the First Amendment WITHOUT A DOUBT.

Marc Randazza DEFENDED Rush Limbaugh's Right to Call a Woman a SLUT
oh about the SLUT thing, well you see If Jenny bo Benny wants to sue me and say that my Opinion of her being a SLUT is Defamation well nothing I can. However, the whole drunken tryst, non-protected sex with a PORN attorney and getting knocked up. Well if I prove she is or was a SLUT then is my critical speech protected? Hmmm.. well it is my personal belief that if you have unprotected SEX with a porn attorney knowing that you may get "something" ewweee and gooey, well ya SLUT .. that's just how I see it.

Oh and remember the video where Randazza said to a guy bitching about his wife being called names.. Marc said hey Howie, if ya love Free Speech ya gotta love it all. Well I stand on the First Amendment Podium, Out and Proud; and I Shout "Jennifer Randazza is a SLUT". So neener neener.

So anyway back to the topic at hand, Why does Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group and his buddies "get" to be above the law and taunt, stalk, harass, bully, and constantly torment their targets and be protected by the courts, judges and given a YAY Marc in legal blogs, Forbes, NPR and more.

Well dig deep folks, this guy is very connected and you LOSE.

The only reason Monica and I have been able to expose his hypocritical lawless ass is because we work for GOD and we had / have faith that if we died for this cause then that is meant to be. I don't speak for or to Monica, in fact we don't speak anymore at all due to Randazza's tormented lying, harassing campaign that has no boundaries not even a relationship to one's pastor. Randazza will use anything he can against his target. The LAW, well that's for him to use against other people; his targets. And damn well better not be used to expose his dumb, lawless, hypocritical ass.

I personally believe that Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group would harm and by that I mean KILL Monica Foster in a minute if he thought he could get away with it. Just in my Opinion of Course.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group posted her car make and model, and "hoped" she died. I believe he paid Ari Bass aKa Michael Whiteacre and Sean Tompkins to taunt, defame, torment, harass and stalk Monica Foster and her family.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, from what I have seen, heard, read and experienced, has tormented Monica Foster for years and yet after he sues her, defames her, taunts and stalks her then WOW he gets one of his corrupt or clueless Nevada Judges to get a protective order against HER to protect him from her. WOW. Really?

What a Whiny, Hypocritical, Butthurt, Evil, Dangerous, Lawless PRICK. 
oh in my Opinion.

Gripe Sites, Parody, Sucks Sites, Art that Expresses oneself and may be critical of others, and well SPEECH and More SPEECH is all protected under the First Amendment. UNLESS a First Amendment Expert uses his First Amendment knowledge, power and court process to target those who speak critical of him and his family. 
Then the First Amendment DOES not apply.

So . to To Read the Randazza Hypocrisy Protective Order against a woman he and his THUGS stalked for years .. click below..


If you cannot read the document and want to eMail me at