Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Marc Randazza uses Judicial Pleadings to Defame and Harass whomever he has issue with. This is NOT what Absolute Immunity was intended for.

Attorneys, such as Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group and his gang stalking online attorney rings use court motions to defame, slander and retaliate against members of the public they don’t like, have issue with, or want to somehow intimidate. FIGHT BACK.

Crystal Cox continues to allege that attorney Marc Randazza used the Judicial process to defame her, harass her, violate her constitutional rights, shut down her blogs, steal domain names, paint her in false light, threaten and bully her, intimidate her, violation her civil and human rights, ruin her quality of life and put her under constant attack, slander, threats and stress in order to teach her a lesson for having the nerve to exercise her free speech, first amendment rights and speak out about him and his connections to organized crime as well as to dare to make fun of his wife, or call her names.

Marc J. Randazza did not even serve blogger Crystal Cox, he simply filed a 3 million dollar legal action then he and his gang stalking attorney buddies began to blog about it. Randazza uses Judicial Pleadings to defame, slander, threaten, bully, coerce, and paint in false light whomever his target is and completely outside of the law.

Cox saw the case online, contacted the courts and had the nerve, the courage to serve herself and to stand up to Marc Randazza and FIGHT. It has been headed to 2 years now of Randazza v. Cox, and Crystal Cox is still speaking the TRUTH. Marc Randazza is still flat out lying in Judicial Pleadings in order to “save face”, protect his ego, and suppress free speech and first amendment rights in an open market place of ideas.

Check out this Article. Time to STOP Attorneys from Using the Judicial Process, "Abuse of Process", for their own personal agenda.

"Attorneys Beware:  The Publishing of Judicial Pleadings to the Press and on
the Internet May Lose Their Previously Privileged Status and Provide Exposure for
Defamation Far Beyond What is Contemplated"


"In today’s world with the proliferation of social networking sites like Twitter and
Facebook and twenty four hour news channels on television and the internet the
expectation of the media and the public is that they will have unfiltered, instant access to
newsworthy information. The non-biased publishing of judicial pleadings by the news
media may enjoy certain public interest privileges, however, attorneys and others who
assist in facilitating this exchange of information may not be so fortunate."

Source
http://www.thenormanlawfirm.com/misc/AttorneysBeware.pdf

Especially when they file a Judicial Pleading, then immediately publish it, and get their attorneys buddies to publish, this way they have Absolute Immunity under law and can defame whomever they want and are protected by the courts. FIGHT Back Folks, this is not lawful. SUE THEM.

"In Sunstar Ventures, LLC. v. Tigani, the Superior Court for Delaware, New Castle County, followed federal law in recognizing that the publishing of a judicial pleading to the press extinguishes the absolute litigation privilege.

 In recognizing the privilege is waived when pleadings are published to parties like the press with no
connection to the judicial proceeding the Superior Court followed the rule in Delaware set forth in Barker v. Huang  that the absolute judicial privilege will not protect an attorney who wishes to litigate his case in the press."

"With this decision Delaware joins
the overwhelming majority of states that have adopted such a position.5
 Furthermore,  2
attorneys who decide to enlist the press or utilize the internet as a litigation tool should be
aware that their potential exposure from defamation suits may come from parties that
were not previously named in the underlying lawsuit and may extend to other attorneys in
the firm besides the attorney who submitted the pleading to the press.

Defamation Actions 

The common law tort of defamation comes from the recognition that “reputation and honor are no less precious to good men than bodily safety and freedom. In some cases they are dearer than life itself. It is needful for the peace and welfare of a civilized commonwealth that the laws should protect the reputation as well as the person of the citizen.”

 A communication is defamatory “if it tends to so harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.” Liability for written defamation known as libel is typically broader than oral communication known as slander.

Source
http://www.thenormanlawfirm.com/misc/AttorneysBeware.pdf

It is NOT ok, nor Lawful for attorneys such as Marc Randazza and his gang stalking attorney network to use the "press", other legal bloggers, Forbes, NPR, WIPO, New York Times and more, to litigate his case. Randazza even goes farther, he uses those publishings that he influenced as evidence to the courts to further incriminate, paint in false light and set up his targets.

"Besides truth, there may be other defenses to an action for defamation.  Absolute and qualified privileges are affirmative defenses to defamation that set forth interests which society recognizes as superior to that of one’s own reputation.

However, the application of these interests must be narrowly tailored to serve the purpose for which they were created. If the privilege no longer serves the purpose for which it was created, it is waived.

When pleadings are drafted as part of a judicial proceeding any defamatory language within the pleadings is protected by the absolute judicial privilege, otherwise
known as the absolute litigation privilege."

"The publishing of these pleadings to parties and on forums unconnected with the judicial proceeding typically extinguishes the absolute litigation privilege. However, the publishing of filed pleadings by non-litigant parties under certain conditions may still enjoy protection under the more limited,
qualified fair report privilege.

A. The Absolute Litigation Privilege.

The absolute litigation privilege is a common law privilege that has been embraced “uniformly by state and federal courts.”17 The privilege protects judges, attorneys, witnesses, and parties from the threat of defamation suits as long as the communication was made in the course of a judicial proceeding and was relevant to a matter at issue."

Source and Full Article, Chocked Full of Case Law for you to FIGHT BACK.
http://www.thenormanlawfirm.com/misc/AttorneysBeware.pdf

Attorneys such as Marc Randazza get around this issue and create an online frenzy, another words use the Internet to litigate, then use that as evidence in the court. Randazza gets around it by having his "friends" do this dirty work for him. He gets attorneys such as Kenneth White, Jordan Rushie, Scott Greenfield and the gang; and media outlets such as Forbes and NPR, legal bloggers such as William Peacock of Thomson Reuters FindLaw legal network, and legal blogs such as AboveTheLaw and others. He gets them to paint litigants out as bad, evil, GUILTY before any kind of due process is even available to them and often times before they even know that Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group and the gang have even sued them.

Stand up to these attorneys, EXPOSE Them.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Will Judge Amy J. St. Eve Do the Right Thing and contact authorities in the Heritage Union Life Insurance Case in her court? There is clear fraud, forgery, insurance fraud and even possible murder.

Why did Judge Amy J. St. Eve let Tescher & Spallina out of the Jackson National Life Insurance scandal?

Why is Judge Amy J. St. Eve not notifying the authorities, when there is clear and obvious insurance fraud, forgery, fraud on the court, document fraud and possible murder?

Judge Amy J. St. Eve surely see's possible insurance fraud, fraud on the courts, forged and fraudulent documents, and she is experienced in fraud cases as per her position at Whitewater Independent Counsel's Office, Little Rock, Arkansas successfully prosecuting fraud.

What will Judge Amy J. St. Eve do about the Simon Bernstein Estate Case and the clear and convincing evidence of Fraud, Forgery, and the role of Law Firm Tescher & Spallina which seems to have simply been let off the proverbial hook there in Illinois?

Why is Judge Amy J. St. Eve seemingly so hard on Pro Se litigant Eliot Bernstein, when clearly he is pointing out and proving, convincingly, fraud on the courts, forgery, sheriff's reports where Ted Bernstein alleges murder, documents of fact and well clearly there is all manner of fraud, corruption and illegal documentation here, not to mention possible murder. So why is Judge Amy J. St. Eve not seeming to take all this serious?

Is insurance fraud legal in Illinois? Is it ok to have NO Policy, kill a guy, then say hey I am the trustee of his estate so pay me... ya I know there is no policy but please. Then Jackson National says ok and forks over millions, REALLY? WOW !!!

No Policy, No Contract. The Plaintiff does not actually exist, what will Judge Amy J. St. Eve do?

Ted Bernstein is the alleged Trustee of a Trust that does NOT EXIST, what Judge Amy J. St. Eve rule on all this? Is  Judge Amy J. St. Eve conflicted? What is really going on behind the scenes of this case.

No executed copy of the TRUST, money in the bank from Jackson National, and WHY? No policy, no insured, no contract.. What???

Why is Jackson National not leading the fight on all this? Why is Tescher & Spallina let out of the case, when they sure seemed to have caused the whole multi-million dollar, fraudulent, murderous scandal?

I think all you reading this should throw your name into the proverbial hat as a successor to the trust, or a policy holder. See Jackson National Insurance Company does not care if you prove it, just say you are the rightful owner, stomp your feet, and they will say oh ok you are right there was a policy and contract though we can't find it, so here ya go. Oh wait, sorry we are giving the money on the imaginary policy to the court cuz we can't find the contract, then the court can give it to you or your sibling or whom ever. We don't care what the policy owner actually wanted or if there was a policy?

Pay close attention to what Judge Amy J. St. Eve Does in the Jackson National Insurance Company / Heritage Union Life Insurance case involving the Simon Bernstein Estate.


Why was Judge Amy J. St. Eve seemed so eager to let Donald Tescher & Robert Spallina out of the Heritage Union Life Insurance case regarding the Simon Bernstein Estate?

I wondered what conflicts of interest, if any led to this, what seemed to be behind her motivation if anything. One can only speculate I suppose and hope she obeys the law, removes herself if she has conflicts, and is on the right side of Justice and the moral compass.


Has Judge Amy J. St. Eve or Jackson National Insurance Company seen the report that Simon Bernstein's Death was called in as a murder? Or have they spoke with his doctor from the night before he died? Is it really ok for a death such as this to have a policy pay off, no questions asked?

Policy Holder was murdered for an inheritance? Original Police Report.
http://tedbernsteinreport.blogspot.com/2014/02/reported-as-murdered-yet-box-checked-is.html

Is Judge Amy J. St. Eve being a Senior counsel for Abbott Laboratories some conflict in this case?

Is Judge Amy J. St. Eve being recommended by U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, some sort of conflict in this case in any way?

Judge Amy J. St. Eve was seemingly made famous by the Conrad Moffat Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour case, is this a conflict in any way?

Judge Amy J. St. Eve was an Associate independent counsel, Whitewater Independent Counsel's Office, Little Rock, Arkansas from 1994 to 1996, where she successfully prosecuted former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and Whitewater partners Jim and Susan McDougal for fraud. So surely Judge Amy J. St. Eve knows fraud when she sees it, especially all the documented proof in this case, so what will Judge Amy J. St. Eve do about it?


Davis Polk & Wardwell in New York City is sure on my blogs alot. Judge Amy J. St. Eve used to work at Davis Polk & Wardwell in New York, does this have any conflict of interest connected?

Here are a few Past Blog Posts by Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox regarding Davis Polk & Wardwell in New York City.

A bit on Leslie Anderson, Peter Sivere, JP Morgan, Christine Anderson and More..

http://fraudulenttransaction.blogspot.com/2010/08/barclays-capital-davis-polk-wardwell.html
Wow do we have a conflict of interest with the George Demos scandal? or how about the Christine Anderson case in New York? or perhaps iViewit or Proskauer Rose?

http://libbymontananews.blogspot.com/2010/09/news-archives-wr-grace-proskauer-rose.html
"Prior to joining the SEC, Mr. Gordon was a litigation associate at the law firms of Davis Polk & Wardwell and Proskauer Rose in New York."

http://whistleblowerreportonline.blogspot.com/2010/08/davis-polk-wardwell-is-jp-morgan-cronie.html

my Peter Sivere Scandal, JP Morgan whistleblower blog is now at
http://petersivere.blogspot.com/

http://thebrokerszone.blogspot.com/2010/03/peter-z-sivere-v-jp-morgan-chase.html

One can only suspect, or Flat out State that Judge Amy J. St. Eve has some SERIOUS conflicts of interest. And I am going to go right out there on that limb and say that Judge Amy J. St. Eve is protecting Proskauer Rose, Tescher & Spallina, Polk & Wardwell and a whole bunch of others concerning the 13 Trillion Dollar iViewit Technology which is at the foundation of this case.

Well we shall see how it all plays out and if Judge Amy J. St. Eve does the right thing, and rules within the law and the constitution of the United States.

Full Docket Illinois
http://www.iviewit.tv/Simon%20and%20Shirley%20Estate/Docket%20Simon%20Bernstein%20Trust%20v%20Heritage%20Jackson%20National%20US%20District%20Court%20Northern%2013cv03643%20Hon%20Amy%20St%20Eve.htm

What's up with the Ethics Of Benjamin P. Brown of Matwiczyk & Brown LLP?

How would you like it if your Parents seemingly hired and puppeteered an attorney to allegedly act on your behalf, file motions allegedly in your best interest to GIVE your Parents your inheritance, left to you LEGALLY by your Grandparents, and you have never even spoke with your attorney, yet you are allegedly his client?

Oh and YOU are and Adult? WTF, Really?

In court Ben Brown of Matwiczyk & Brown claims he has never spoke with his clients.

So why is he filing motions on their behalf and giving away their inheritance?

Just how much conflict of interest does Benny Boy have in all this? 

I sure hope Benjamin P. Brown of Matwiczyk & Brown LLP is not breaking any laws or ethical violations, would sure hate to see him lose his law license and go to prison for protecting the clear and OBVIOUS lies unethical, and illegal actions of Ted Bernstein.

How about Do the RIGHT Thing, Obey the LAW and STOP protecting the Criminal.. just a thought, in my personal opinion.

Hey Kids, in my Opinion, because I can read the LAW, you have a Malpractice lawsuit against Benjamin P. Brown of Matwiczyk & Brown LLP. He is not legally, nor ethically allowed to file motions regarding YOU, acting as your attorney on deals of which you know NOTHING about, and he has not eve Spoke with you. There is another 2 Million or more for you guys right there in a Malpractice Lawsuit. Looks good from where I sit.

I say SUE Benjamin P. Brown of Matwiczyk & Brown LLP, personally and professionally for Malpractice. Seems to me, that he has NO legal right to file court motions, stand in court and speak at hearings on behalf and allegedly in the best interest of his client, under an attorney client relationship, yet admits to have never spoken to his clients? Then how does he know what the client wants?

Who does Benjamin P. Brown of Matwiczyk & Brown LLP work for? If its Teddy Boy and all his fraud on the courts, then why is the client, Adult Children of Ted, that Benny has never spoke to? WOW talk about fraud on the courts, lack of ethics, malpractice, judicial duping, and well I say a GREAT case for a malpractice lawsuit.

So Benjamin P. Brown of Matwiczyk & Brown LLP has just been appointed Administrator Ad Litem of the Simon Bernstein Estate to assert, defend the interest of the Estate in Illinois courts where there is massive fraud on the court due to Tescher and Spallina, a fraudulent or non-existent Plaintiff, a bogus insurance claim it seems, a Judge who may be protecting Tescher and Spallina, and millions of dollars at stake in an insurance scandal; No Trust, No Insurance Policy, yet MONEY in waiting for the rightful owner, why? and who is the rightful owner? where is the will and why is Benjamin P. Brown of Matwiczyk & Brown LLP protecting Robert Spallina and Ted Bernstein? Or is He?

WOW, what a Legal Mess. No worries though it will ALL come out. I guarantee it. And Benjamin P. Brown of Matwiczyk & Brown LLP may just go to prison with TED and Spallina, we shall see.

Order appointing Benjamin P. Brown of Matwiczyk & Brown LLP Administrator Ad Litem
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiUnVtQ1RmMGV0VFU/edit

Friday, May 30, 2014

Initiate and Odor Lawsuit Port Townsend. You have LEGAL RIGHTS, even as individuals and you do not need an attorney. SUE Amcol and Sue Dahl Stahl and other executives professionally and personally.

"In follow up to my recent post on Pennsylvania private nuisance lawsuits to battle harms caused by oil and gas fracking I stumbled upon a recent $3 million verdict in Texas on a nuisance lawsuit.  Here are a few links to articles about the notable nuisance case, one of the first of its kind (most of these lawsuits are settled before trial):

Fracking Went On Trial

Texas Family's Nuisance Complaint Seen as a Win Against Fracking

 Jury Awards Texas Family $2.9M For Fracking Nuisance Claim

Law360.com reports that the Parrs (the injured family) had sought damages from Aruba Petroleum Inc., alleging the 22 wells Aruba operated within a two-mile radius of their land exposed them to hazardous gases, chemicals and industrial waste that made them so sick they couldn’t work and at times had to live in Bob Parr's office instead of at their home. The Parrs attributed their illnesses to benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and other volatile organic compounds used to frack the wells, and said their home had been assaulted by smells and noise from the wells since drilling started.

Reports indicate that in a 5 to 1 verdict, the jury did not find Aruba’s conduct was abnormal and out of place for its surroundings but said it did take intentional steps to cause substantial interference with the Parr family’s use of its 40-acre homestead west of Fort Worth. The jury did not find Aruba acted with malice, and rejected the Parrs’ claim for exemplary damages, but awarded them damages for physical and mental pain and anguish and for loss of market value for the land.  The Parrs were represented expertly by Texas trial attorney Brad Gilde of Gilde Law Firm based in Houston, Texas.

There is little doubt with all of the oil and gas drilling occurring right now in our state that many Pennsylvania residents are experiencing the same type of symptoms as the Parrs.  Because of this amazing verdict oil and gas companies will hopefully take notice of the risk they face from substantial verdicts if they do not safely undertake their oil and gas fracking."

Source of Article
http://www.injurylawsourcepa.com/2014/05/verdict-in-oil-and-gas-fracking.html

You have LEGAL Rights.

The City of Port Townsend is standing on the wrong side of the moral compass and the law if they won't sue the mill. So is Jefferson County, you ALL can make a stand, individually. ONE person really can take them ON.

JUST DO IT.

Dale Stahl, Amcol, Port Townsend Paper; Port Townsend NEEDS to STOP Catering to AMCOL and the Mill Stench and SUE the Mill, Washing DEQ, and the EPA.


Folks you can Sue the Paper Mill, Amcol, Jefferson County, the EPA, and Washing DEQ and you can do it Pro Se. You can file in Olympia in Federal court as Amcol is in WA state and Amcol international owns Port Townsend paper. There are plenty of Cause of Actions to SUE and SHUT DOWN THE PORT Townsend Paper Mill.

"Sriracha Factory Under Fire For Fumes; City Sues

Complaints from nearby residents about "burning eyes, irritated throats and headaches" have led the city of Irwindale, Calif., to ask a judge to order the company that makes Sriracha hot sauce to suspend production.

According to the Los Angeles Times, city attorneys "filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Monday, claiming that the odor was a public nuisance and asking a judge to stop production until the smell can be reduced."

NBC Los Angeles says "the complaint alleges the smell is so strong that residents have moved their 'outdoor activities indoors' and even left their homes temporarily to avoid the stench."

CBS Los Angeles adds that: "The city staff met with Huy Fong Foods officials Oct. 1 and company representatives said they would 'do everything possible to abate the odors.' But on Oct. 16, the city staff was told by a company official during another meeting that no odor problem existed, the suit says."

One nearby resident, Rita Sanchez, tells CBS Los Angeles that the smell and the tingling, burning sensations it can cause are "kind of unbearable." But another young woman, Sabrina Cabrera, isn't bothered. She compares it to the odors from neighbors' cooking.

Both the Times and CBS Los Angeles say their calls and emails to Huy Fong Foods were not immediately returned.

A judge is due to consider the city's complaint on Thursday.

There's a lot at stake — OC Weekly reports that Huy Fong's "655,000 square foot facility can produce 200 million bottles of the bottled crack per year."

[Note at 1:15 p.m. ET. A few readers have wondered in the comments thread why the fumes have become an issue now, since the sauce has been made for many years. The key, as the Times story notes, is that "the company began sauce production in a 655,000-square-foot factory in Irwindale last year." So the smell has been a problem in Irwindale for a relatively short time.]
Though you may be familiar with the increasingly popular sauce, as our friends at Southern California Public Radio's Take Two say, it is "totally hot right now." The first annual Los Angeles Sriracha festival was held over the weekend."

Source
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/10/29/241587163/sriracha-factory-under-fire-for-fumes-city-sues

YOU have a Legal, Constitutional, Ethical and MORAL Right to Clean Air, Clean Water, and Clean Soil. 

SUE THEM ALL. 

Make a STAND.

For more Research on the Port Townsend Paper Mill and the Stench in the Air in Port Townsend

http://www.energyjustice.net/content/epa-sued-ignoring-paper-mill-co2-emissions-biomass-monitor

http://ptairwatchers.org/background-about-port-townsend-paper-mill/

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004189039_mill19m.html

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Port-Townsend-Paper-Mill/245153762294452

porttownsendpaper.blogspot.com

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20130103/NEWS/301039995/jefferson-county-issues-formal-denial-of-port-townsend-paper-p

http://www.porttownsendpaper.com/search?updated-max=2014-04-18T13:51:00-07:00&max-results=7

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Authentification of Blogs "Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, and Transcripts of YouTube Videos — Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence — Periodicals: Authentication vs. Hearsay"

This is a VERY Important Ruling in the Randazza v. Cox case regarding Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, Transcripts of Videos, and Authentication of Email Evidence.

Crystal Cox Video on this Judicial Order



"Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, and Transcripts of YouTube Videos — Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence — Periodicals: Authentication vs. Hearsay

Randazza v. Cox, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49762 (D. Nev. April 10, 2014):
This cybersquatting case arises out of the alleged targeting of Plaintiffs Marc Randazza, his wife Jennifer, and their young daughter Natalia, by Defendant Crystal Cox, a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger." The Randazzas allege that Cox and Defendant Eliot Bernstein have engaged in an online harassment campaign to extort them by registering dozens of internet domain names that incorporate the Randazzas' names and then demanding they agree to purchase Cox's "reputation management" services to remove this allegedly defamatory material from the internet and rehabilitate their cyber reputations. Cox maintains that this lawsuit was instituted to harass her and stifle her First Amendment freedoms  [*2] of speech and expression.
The Randazza Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their claims against Cox. But as one of those claims is legally untenable, and genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the remainder, their motion is denied. Cox has pending her own motion for summary judgment on her original "Counter-Complaint," which has since been stricken and supplanted (in part) by a new amended counterclaim. ***
In November 2012, the Randazzas sued Cox and Bernstein alleging violations of individual cyberpiracy protections for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 8131,  [*3] cybersquatting for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), their right of publicity under NRS 597.810, their common law right of publicity, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. The claims were based on allegations that Cox and Bernstein registered several domain names containing Plaintiffs' names, that Cox's blog posts contained objectionable characterizations of the Plaintiffs, and that these acts were designed to extort and harass the Randazzas and capitalize on and damage the goodwill Marc Randazza claims he built up in his own name as a prominent First Amendment attorney.
Bernstein has not appeared or answered the allegations, but Cox has. She contends that she registered the domain names to control public relations information when she thought Marc Randazza would represent her in another lawsuit. Cox also strongly objects to Plaintiffs' characterization of her motivation and actions as "extortion."
The tortured history of this case is rife with procedural maneuvering by both sides. All parties have disrupted the Court's timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the orderly administration of justice by sandbagging the docket  [*4] with multiple impertinent, legally unsupported, and frivolous filings. The instant motions were not spared from these tactics. Despite Mr. Randazza's self-proclaimed prominence as a First Amendment attorney and being represented by independent counsel, Plaintiffs have failed to authenticate more than half of their proffered exhibits in support of their motion; and half of the authenticated ones are immaterial to this motion. Equally confounding is that pro seCox has submitted a 255-page nonsensical summary judgment motion and a 183-page opposition to Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, neither of which includes any relevant legal authority or complies with this Court's rules of procedure and evidence. In short, all parties have fallen far short of sustaining their initial summary judgment burdens and both motions are denied.
A. Authentication of Evidence
The first step in analyzing these motions is to determine what evidence the Court may consider in evaluating whether the parties met their respective burdens. In Orr v. Bank of America, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "made it clear that 'unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for summary judgment.'"6 To authenticate  [*5] a document, the proponent must offer "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.'"7 As the summary judgment procedure is the pretrial functional equivalent of a directed-verdict motion, it requires consideration of the same caliber of evidence that would be admitted at trial;8 thus, it is insufficient for a litigant to merely attach a document to a summary judgment motion or opposition without affirmatively demonstrating its authenticity.
6   Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 533 (9th Cir. 2011) (citingOrr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 733 (9th Cir. 2002).
7   Las Vegas Sands, 632 F.3d at 532-33 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)).
8   Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (citing Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 745 n.11 (1983)).
***
1. Periodicals
Plaintiffs offer at Exhibit B an article from Forbes Magazine. Printed material "purporting to be a newspaper or periodical" is self-authenticating.11 Thus, this article is self-authenticating. Its contents, however, are hearsay not subject to any exception. Accordingly, the periodical is not admissible for summary judgment purposes.
11   Fed. R. Evid. 902(6).
2. Websites
Few courts have considered how a website print-out or blog posting may be authenticated. Those that have considered the issue have found "website print-outs [were] sufficiently authenticated where the proponent declared that they were true and correct copies of pages on the  [*8] internet and the print-outs included their webpage URL address and the dates printed."12
12   Haines v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 1:10-cv-01763-SKO, 2012 WL 1143648 *7 (E.D. Cal. April 4, 2012).
The websites contained in Exhibits E, K, Q, R, S, and T have been properly authenticated under this standard because Plaintiff Marc Randazza has attested that they are true and correct copies and the print-outs include the webpage URL address and the dates the websites were printed. However, Plaintiffs have not authenticated any of the purported website contents in Exhibits D, G, M, O, and P. Although Mr. Randazza has attested that these exhibits are true and correct copies and the print-outs include the webpage URL address, absent are the dates the webpages were printed. Without the print dates, these website printouts have not been properly authenticated, and the Court will not consider them.
3. Letters, Emails, and Text Messages
A document may be authenticated by personal knowledge "by a witness who wrote it, signed it, used it, or saw others do so."14 Although circumstantial evidence--like an email's context, email address, or previous  [*9] correspondence between the parties--may help to authenticate an email,15 the most direct method of authentication is a statement from its author or an individual who saw the author compose and send the email.16
14   Orr, 285 F.3d at 774 n.8 (citing references omitted).
15   United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2000).
16   United States v. Fluker, 698 F.3d 988, 999 (7th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiffs have authenticated the letter sent from Mr. Randazza to Defendant Bernstein presented in Exhibit A by Randazza's affidavit stating that he wrote and signed the letter. Similarly, Mr. Randazza's curriculum vitae and the "About" page of his blog attached as Exhibits I and J have been properly authenticated because Mr. Randazza is a person with personal knowledge and he wrote his curriculum vitae and the "About" page of his own blog. Plaintiffs have also authenticated via circumstantial evidence the emails between Cox and Mr. Randazza contained in Exhibit H because the email contains sufficient indicia of authenticity by context, the email addresses, and previous correspondence between the parties.
But Plaintiffs have not authenticated the purported emails between Cox and Dylan Energy CEO  [*10] Martin Cain contained in Exhibit C. Although Plaintiffs attempt to authenticate Exhibit C via circumstantial evidence, there is a gap in the email chain. Mjr@randazza.com purportedly received the forwarded email from matt.baer@dylanenergy.com; savvybroker@ yahoo.com (the email associated with Cox) sent the email to dylanchpmc@verizon.net. Therefore, it is unclear how the person in control of the email address matt.baer@dylanenergy.com came to be in possession of an email originally addressed to dylanchpmc@verizon.net. Without some explanation of the gap in this email chain by someone with personal knowledge, there is insufficient circumstantial indicia of authenticity for the Court to consider this document.
Plaintiffs have not authenticated the text message screen shot in Exhibit A either. The screen shot purporting to be a text-message exchange between Messrs. Randazza and Bernstein has not been authenticated because it does not have circumstantial indicia of authenticity. It is unclear which phone numbers sent or received the messages or to whom those phone numbers belonged when the screen shot was taken, or who took the screen shot. Without this type of supporting evidence, the  [*11] Court cannot consider the text message in Exhibit A.
***
5. YouTube Video
Exhibit N is a transcript of a YouTube video. The single court having addressed how to authenticate a Youtube.com video, albeit in a criminal context, found that videos from the online video network are self-authenticating as a certified domestic record of a regular conducted activity if their proponent satisfies the requirements of the business-records hearsay exception.20 To meet this exception, the evidence must be accompanied by "a certification of their custodian or other qualified person that satisfies three requirements: (A) that the records were 'made at or near the time by--or from information transmitted by--someone with knowledge'; (B) that they were 'kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business'; and (C) that 'making the record was a regular practice of that activity.'"21
20   United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 132-33 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding the YouTube  [*13] video in question was self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902 business records).
21   Id. at 133.
The transcript of the YouTube video contained in Exhibit N has not been properly authenticated. Although Mr. Randazza has attested that it is a true and correct copy of a transcript of a video posted on YouTube.com, he has not established that he is a person with personal knowledge who prepared the transcript, nor has he established when it was prepared and that it is complete and accurate. To the extent that the YouTube.com video itself is offered as evidence, it similarly has not been authenticated because Plaintiffs have not proffered the certificate of YouTube's custodian or other qualified person verifying that the page had been maintained as a business record in the course of regularly conducted business activities. Without this certification, the video has not been properly authenticated and cannot be considered.
With these evidentiary limitations, the Court now turns to the merits of Plaintiffs' summary judgment arguments."

Source
 http://www.jha.com/us/blog/?blogID=2777

Friday, May 23, 2014

Ted Bernstein, Alan B. Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose and John Pankauski and the case of Florida estate fraud, forgery and fraudulent documents. Ted Bernstein is HOPPING mad and wants access to EVERYTHING, Everywhere or ELSE you all are FIRED. See, if you will not aid and abet Ted Bernstein of Life Insurance Concepts, well then what's the use in him paying ya???

Ted Bernstein, Alan B. Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose and John Pankauski ~ John J. Pankauski - Pankauski Law Firm PLLC sure seem to be up to NO GOOD.

Ted BernsteinLife Insurance Concepts, Alan B. Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose and John Pankauski ~ John J. Pankauski - Pankauski Law Firm PLLC sure seem to be up to NO GOOD.

Ted Bernstein, Alan B. Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose and John Pankauski like to operate in the dark. The thing is God / Goddess, the Great Spirit has a way of bringing the dark to the light, in support of the "good guy" and of doing the right thing.

Poor Baby TEDDY does not want to spend another dime on attorneys who will not cover up his corruption, aid and abet him or defend his rights to break the law.

Below is an eMails that seems to suggest "Foul Play" and lawless, over the top aggressive, you be the judge. And also read this entire blog, and I would say that FLORIDA is not the best place to actually have your wishes carried out when you die. Especially not with this gang of seemingly corrupt THUGS.

oH and Ted Bernstein accusing Crystal Cox, me, of Extortion, but no BALLS to file a police report, what? If I have extorted your whiny, corrupt ASS then file a police report, ya spineless coward.

God / Goddess works in mysterious ways and this eMail is one of those ways in which the LIGHT is coming in and God is working for the Greater Good.

Thank You God  <takes a bow>  <hands firmly pressed>

*

"Alan - I want Eliot's deposition scheduled as soon as you can notice him.  We can discuss the strategy once he is served. I want to go through each claim with you and/or John to determine the legal necessity to respond.  If any reply is necessary, the record must be straight with respect to each.

This is a rambling, filled with contradictions that need to be exposed for what they are.  If John does not want to tangle with Eliot, remove John immediately. I am sorry to be this blunt, but I do not want to address the John issue again.

If he is not 100% in support of me as trustee, including how I have protected myself with trust assets and will continue doing so as necessary, and being aggressive and forceful, if need be, with eliot, remove him as counsel.  

I do not want to spend another unnecessary dollar with counsel that is not going to zealously defend me as trustee and protect trust assets.

I cannot be more decisive re this and I say this with no animosity - simply for efficiency sake and my best interest.

Eliot is in default of production.  Let's serve notice on him that he is in default.

I want Eliot to produce everything he has with respect to these cases, including:

Documents he refers to having that provide trusts for him and/or his children.

Agreements he has signed with my father and mother, together or separately.

All correspondence between him and my parents, together or separately concerning anything he has referenced in his ramblings through this one.

Anything and everything pertaining to iviewit, including his harassment of Jerry Lewin, Al Gortz of Proskauer and their firms.

I want court proceedings, lawsuits, all correspondence to him and from him including paper and electronic, including video tapes and electronic interviews.

History of incidents at st. Andrews school.

All correspondence with bill Stansbury. Everything related to Feaman / Stansbury

All bank accounts, credit cards, sources of income, loans and gifts.

All correspondence with anyone he has shared estate details.

All correspondence of every type with: walker, puzzio, SAHM, Diana banks, Scott banks, NACLERIO, Dietz, Gefen and every person on his email distribution list. If he doesn't comply, I want all of them deposed.

Everything in which he has mentioned my name including emails, phone calls, letters, complaints to whatever agencies he has made complaints including police, federal, state, regulatory.

Everything and anything he is doing that we are not yet aware of such as online web site attacks.

Everything connected to crystal cox concerning me and anyone else he is extorting and harassing together with her.

Manceri filed production requests. If it is possible to hand eliot a subpoena for his deposition at tomorrows hearing, that would be great. 

I also want feamans deposition taken in connection with this case and what he is doing with Eliot. 

If mediation is scheduled and you feel this is better done after the mediation, I am okay with that. If it is not, let's take his depo.

How much is in Feaman trust account that has been stolen from us? 

I want an accounting. 

Has any money been used for Stansbury defense thus far?

If we are scheduled for mediation, will this be revealed? If we are not, I want to know ASAP what is in account, I want all statements and any expenditures.

I'm sure I will think of more.

Ted Bernstein"

More information at
http://tedbernsteinreport.blogspot.com/