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 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 

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group and others named in Southern District of New York RICO

UNITED STATES DISRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; RICO Naming Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group and others in Alleged Conspiracy.


70. That Self Acclaimed “Porn Industry” Attorney at Law, Randazza, files complaints with
this international intellectual property agency in attempts to seize domain names from
Cox that have his name in the URL and have many links to this RICO and suppress her
blogs and at the same time defame her and Plaintiff.

71. That on June 2012 Randazza filed a CZECH Complaint against Cox and Plaintiff. The
Czech Arbitration Court case worker was Tereza Bartoskova. The Czech Arbitration
Court case number was Administrative proceeding No. 100472. This domain name
dispute was filed by Randazza.

It was filed against Cox and again Plaintiff was inserted and then without notice this case was withdrawn as Cox prepared and filed her response.

Czech Arbitration Court case Administrative Proceeding No. 100472 is hereby included
as evidence into this case, in its entirety, including but not limited to, all documents,
emails, filings, answers, phone records and all information in this case.

72. Czech Arbitration Court case Administrative proceeding No. 100472 was cancelled after
months of document and exhibit submissions by Randazza as well as Respondent. Cox’s
answer was filed. Randazza did not notify Respondents, Plaintiff and Cox that he had
withdrawn the complaint.

Randazza then, at some point after this, and with no reason as to why the Czech case was cancelled, filed a WIPO Dispute with the same claims. In July 2012, Randazza filed a WIPO Complaint against Cox and again, Plaintiff is inserted from start to finish.


73. That this complaint was never served on Plaintiff and no response was tendered in his
defense of this matter, which falsely accuses and defames Plaintiff, stating he has
committed “Extortion” and more.

74. That a decision was reached by a one person panelist, this time amazingly by Michaelson,
they very guy Defendant Proskauer tried to have in their WIPO complaints but was
refused, now ignores his conflicts, which precluded his involvement in the Proskauer
WIPO action listed above and jumps right in. Michaelson denies repeated formal written
requests by Cox for disclosure of conflicts and fails to affirm or deny. Michaelson then
makes determinations in the matter that outright accuses Plaintiff and Cox of the criminal
act of “Extortion” and more, which then goes on to be Published in MAJOR NEWS
PUBLICATIONS, defaming and harassing Cox and Plaintiff and accusing them
publically in Official Proceedings and the Press of crimes they had never been accused or
tried for. Sounds eerily similar to the claims of Celani in the ECC articles when
referencing those who were set up intentionally for crimes that were 100% bogus.

75. That Plaintiff had never been charged at that time or any time with extortion in a criminal
or civil matter, nor has he ever been accused, prosecuted or tried for such crime but with
Michaelson’s decision claiming such false and fabricated accusations, a false media 
campaign was bolstered by an illegally rendered decision and word spread purposely and
from a small spark a wild fire of defamatory press has ensued.

76. That Cox has filed a RICO and a Defamation lawsuit and Plaintiff will soon follow
against all those involved.

77. That WIPO has no legal capacity to rule on criminal matters or to allege publically in a
decision that anyone is acting criminally based on their findings, without that person
being found guilty by the proper criminal authorities, yet this is exactly what happened,
again illustrating another abuse of process that defames Plaintiff.

78. That again the WIPO panelist that makes these defamatory claims is conflicted to
Defendants in this RICO Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, MPEG, Judith Kaye and
others, as fully exhibited in Cox’s filings in the action, and whereby all filings of this
WIPO complaint are hereby incorporated in entirety by reference herein.

79. That in the WIPO decision by Michaelson, he quotes from David Carr of The New York
Times in a published article21, "Ms. Cox, who calls herself an ‘investigative blogger,’ has
a broad range of conspiratorial/journalistic interests. She has written that Bruce Sewell,
the general counsel of Apple, ‘aids and abets criminals’; that Jeffrey Bewkes, the Chief
Executive of Time Warner, is ‘a proven technology thief’; and that various Proskauer
Rose lawyers have engaged in a pattern of ‘conspiracy,’” in order to make Cox look not
credible in reporting on Bruce Sewell, General Counsel of Defendant Apple, former
General Counsel of Defendant Intel and on Defendant Time Warner Inc., BOTH who are
directly involved in the iViewit case. Thereby, David Carr of the New York Times is
found using "big media" that is well trusted by the public, in order to discredit the
iViewIt Technology story, this RICO Lawsuit and the “Legally Related” lawsuits and
acts to further defame and slander Plaintiff.

80. That Randazza through the aid of New York Attorney Michaelson acting in conflict and
who upon being repeatedly requested to affirm or deny conflicts by Cox fails to either
confirm or deny his conflicts with Kenneth Rubenstein, MPEG LA, and Ex Supreme
Court Judge Judith Kay.

That Michaelson in essence frames Plaintiff and Cox with charges of “Extortion” through misuse of an international agency and further illegally seizes domains and Intellectual Properties of Plaintiff and Cox.

81. That Michaelson, WIPO sole Panelist in the decision, frames, defames and slanders
Plaintiff and Cox in an internationally published domain name and intellectual property
decision of WIPO"

"82. That Michaelson, WIPO sole Panelist, Marc J. Randazza v. Reverend Crystal Cox, Eliot
Bernstein, Case No. D2012-1525, States, "Fourth, Respondent Cox exhibited bad faith in
transferring ownership of some of the disputed domain names to Respondent Bernstein,
who merely served as a proxy of the former, in an attempt to evade liability (via so-called
“cyberflight”) under the Policy." This is entrapment, as Plaintiff received domain names
in receivership and part of no cyberflight, and Plaintiff was not, nor is not now a “Proxy.”


83. That on information and belief this case is related matter to the Randazza WIPO case


86. That on November 28th, 2012 Randazza of RLG, former Attorney of Cox, now files
District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL against his former client Cox and
allegedly against Plaintiff directly.

87. That on November 30th, 2012, the WIPO decision against Cox and Plaintiff obtained
through the conflicts of interest of Michaelson is then used to support the allegations
against Cox and Plaintiff to the Nevada court as evidence of their criminal acts, all the

22 Docket Link

23 Recent Filing Links
Randazza V. Cox



Cox Reply to Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Insurance Documentation


Cox Response - Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Case Management Conference

Motion to Reconsider Counter Complaint Dismissal and leave to amend counter complaint to meet court specifications 

while continuing the defamation that Plaintiff and Cox are now guilty of the crime of
extortion and more.

88. That Plaintiff has recently learned that he may also be a defendant in this suit. While
Plaintiff has not been legally served this complaint, it appears from the Pacer listing that
once again Plaintiff has been added to a complaint without proper notice or service and
according to the docket judgments have been entered against him.

89. That once again, Defendants of this RICO & ANTITRUST are involved in this action
against Cox and now apparently Plaintiff directly as a Defendant, including but not
limited to, Defendant Greenberg Traurig who now shows up. 

90. That Judge Gloria Navarro (“Navarro”), in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-
GMN-PAL stated, "The Domain Names at issue in this case were registered by
Defendant Crystal Cox some of which were listed under proxy, Defendant Eliot
Bernstein…” The Footnote in regard to this statement refers to Randazza making this 
claim to Judge Navarro as fact. (Docket Entry 14, Page 2 of 12).

91. That Plaintiff was not a "proxy" and therefore Judge Navarro defamed Plaintiff in
claiming this to be a fact and therefore this became part of a ruling to seize Intellectual
Properties of both Cox and Plaintiff, which was exposing those involved in this RICO
and the “Legally Related” lawsuits.

For the Navarro to claim Plaintiff is a "proxy" in this situation is to suggest criminal activity and that Plaintiff was aiding Cox in hiding alleged "assets", yet another criminal allegation and therefore upon my knowledge and belief, this represents alleged entrapment and criminal conspiracy between Judge Navarro and Randazza. 

92. That Navarro, in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL through an
unlawful, unconstitutional TRO, Preliminary injunction, removed online news sites that
contained investigative reporting regarding the Iviewit companies and the unethical
action of Randazza via this abuse of process.

93. That Navarro, in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Docket Entry 14
granted Randazza a mass of domain names, with no due process to Plaintiff or Cox and
Navarro also states on page 6 and in the footnotes that "Defendants" (this includes
Plaintiff), is guilty of acquiring domain names, intellectual property in "bad faith" and 
discusses the offering of a domain name that allegedly had adverse content on it 
regarding Randazza, which is false information and is also entrapment to suggest
"Defendants" are in conspiracy in a "bad faith" extortion scheme.

These are criminal allegations by Navarro in a Civil Case, cleverly designed to discredit, defame and harass Plaintiff and Investigative Blogger Cox who is reporting on the Iviewit story, this 
Lawsuit and the “Related Lawsuits.” 

94. That Navarro, in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Docket Entry 14,
page 8, accuses Plaintiff of “cyber-extortion,” which is criminal. 

Judge Navarro is not "Immune" from prosecution for these false allegations in judicial rulings based upon materially false information regarding crimes that were never committed, prosecuted or
tried and where there has been no prosecution or charges of such crimes against Plaintiff 72
and Cox. Therefore, these decisions appear intended solely to defame and harass 
Plaintiff and Cox further and discredit the iViewit companies, this RICO lawsuit and the
“Legally Related” cases.

95. That Page 1, Document 41, District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, is a
Ruling, which also accuses Plaintiff of being a "proxy", which is a criminal allegation.
Document 41 also grants Randazza a Preliminary Injunction that violates the First
Amendment Rights of Plaintiff and Cox, as it removes massive online content without
First Amendment adjudication first, going wholly in opposite of long standing

96. That District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Docket Entry 39 Grants a
Default Judgment against Plaintiff whom has never been legally served in this case or
received any communications from this Nevada court.

97. That it appears that Ronald Green (“Green”) of RLG, who at the time of filing this
complaint against Cox and Bernstein, had just recently jumped from working at
Defendant Greenberg Traurig’s law firm (in the intellectual property group no less) to
RLG, just in time to prepare in undisclosed conflict, the purported service papers served
in this lawsuit to Plaintiff.

98. That Roxanne Grinage (“Grinage”) was hired and retained by Plaintiff to perform legal
services for Plaintiff. Grinage was under retained legal contract with Plaintiff and
Grinage was given proprietary, confidential, privileged information in this process,
regarding the highly complex details of the iViewit companies, including but not limited 73
to, information regarding intellectual properties, highly sensitive and confidential
information related to business negotiations and federal, state and international
investigation information and all legal actions Plaintiff is involved in.

99. That as a prudent standard of practice, Grinage at her request was copied in emails to
executives of technology companies Plaintiff was negotiating with and other important
legal communications, as she was under contract with Plaintiff and performing related
tasks and legal contract work for Plaintiff on these contacts. It was important to keep
Grinage in the communication loop in these matters, as they pertained to past and future
legal work in which Grinage was under contract to perform for Plaintiff.

100. That in one such series of confidential email communication, regarding communications
with Apple executives Steve Dowling and Bruce Sewell, regarding a website owned by
Plaintiff, that contained information regarding Plaintiff’s
complaint to the SEC regarding Sewell and Intel while he was General Counsel at Intel
and notifying Dowling who had released an Apple press release announcing Sewell’s
arrival at Apple of Sewell’s involvement in the Technology Thefts of Plaintiff while at
Defendant Intel and the SEC complaint filed against Intel naming Sewell.

101. That Dowling had contacted Plaintiff to see if he would sell him back the website and where Plaintiff believes that Sewell was behind this call
attempting to entrap Plaintiff into an extortion scheme where Plaintiff would extort
Dowling with some extreme number “or else.” However, none of that happened as
Plaintiff offered no amount and no “or else” but rather Plaintiff used the opportunity 74
instead to give notice to Apple executive Dowling that Apple and Intel were Defendants
in the Amended Complaint and would be sued in all forthcoming legal actions and also
give formal notice that Apple was infringing on Plaintiff’s Patent Suspended/Pending
technologies and that he should immediately notify Apple shareholders of their liabilities
or Plaintiff would be forced to notify the SEC and others of their failure to account
properly for liabilities under FASB and more. Finally, Plaintiff notified Dowling that he
was now absolutely aware of the lingering liabilities over a decade of use of Plaintiff’s
technologies after reviewing the contents of www.stevedowling,com that he was
attempting to purchase from Plaintiff.

102. That Plaintiff than began a series of follow up emails with Dowling and Sewell to
negotiate a possible license deal with Apple that would settle the infringement and
remove them from the civil RICO action and future legal actions and thereby avoid the
necessity of reporting these major liabilities to their shareholders and others.

103. That Plaintiff copied Grinage in these email communications with Apple, as this was a
standard of practice in order to keep Grinage up to speed regarding the ongoing
communications and negotiations as she had requested. Grinage, a copied recipient on
the emails from Plaintiff then suddenly and for unknown reasons began a campaign to
sabotage and defame both Plaintiff and Cox in the ongoing negotiations with APPLE
executives that were crucial to iViewit companies investors and iViewit companies
inventors, derailing possible settlement talks regarding the issues contained in these 75
confidential emails by suddenly interjecting herself into the negotiations fraught with
allegations of criminal acts by Plaintiff and Cox.

104. That Plaintiff also copied in this series of email communications investigative blogger
Cox, who had been reporting on the iViewit story for 3 years and had posted a blog on
the website , notifying Dowling of the liabilities associated with
Sewell and Apple.

105. That Grinage then suddenly and without warning began replying to the copied recipients
in a massive breach of contract and without conference with Plaintiff or Cox prior. These
replies by Grinage to those same Apple executives, attorneys and officials involved in
this confidential legal communication attacked, defamed, and discredited Plaintiff and
Cox, stating that they were running an extortion plot against Apple executives and others
and other defamatory and slanderous accusations. Accusations that suddenly turn up in a
number of the legal process abuse cases cited herein.

106. That after this series of events Plaintiff immediately ceased working with Grinage who
then sought retaliation by conspiring further against Plaintiff and Cox with Defendant
Randazza to further defame and harass Plaintiff and Cox through broadcasted messages
making wild allegations of criminal activity against Plaintiff, again allegations that have
no factual basis.

107. Cox named Grinage in her counter complaint filed in Randazza v. Cox (District of
Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL) that was dismissed by that Court without
proper adjudication, despite Grinage accepting service and preparing to answer the 76
complaint as Grinage had sent notice to Cox and all those involved in Randazza v. Cox,
except of course Plaintiff, of her anticipated response and counter response to Cox’s filed
counter complaint. Grinage also sent certified motions to the District of Nevada Court of
Judge Navarro, to enter into the case and thereby proving her acceptance of service in
that lawsuit.

However and suspiciously, this motion by Grinage and the accompanying
documents she filed were never placed on the Randazza v. Cox docket or entered into the
record, in fact, Grinage was not even entered as Counter Defendant in the docket or case.
Immediately after Grinage’s filings Judge Navarro dismissed Cox's counter complaint all
together, denying her the right to counter sue and denying Grinage’s right to answer.
108. Cox then named Grinage as a defendant in a new suit that Cox was ordered by Navarro to
file in substitute of the denied counter complaint, alleging that Grinage is acting in
conspiracy to defame and harass Plaintiff and Cox with other defendants named in her
RICO and this RICO.

00297‐JCM‐VCF CHANGED TO 2:13‐CV‐00297 JCM (NJK)

109. That on February 24th 2013, Cox filed District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-MMD-VCF.
That this lawsuit is related to the lawsuit above in Nevada as it acts as Cox’s counter complaint in that lawsuit, yet Cox was prohibited from filing a counter complaint in that
lawsuit and Ordered by the judge to file as a separate action?

110. That many of the defendants in that case are again the same as those in this RICO
lawsuit, including but not limited to (bolded names are common defendants); AOL Inc.,
APPLE, David S. Aman, Mark Bennett, Sean Boushie , MT, David W. Brown, Brown,
White and Newhouse Law Firm, Martin Cain, John Calkins, David Carr, Bernie Cassidy
MT, Doug Chey, Tracy L. Coenen, Corbin Fisher, Jennifer DeWolf Paine, Steve
Dowling, Diana Duke, Dylan Energy, Royce Engstrom , MT, Allen Fagin, Forbes Inc.,
Free Speech Coalition, Bob Garfield, Godaddy Inc., Ronald D. Green, Greenberg
Traurig Law Firm,

Scott H Greenfield, Jessica Griffin, Roxanne Grinage, Taylor Kai Groenke MT, Francis Gurry, Judge Marco Hernandez, Kashmir Hill, HireLyrics, Intel Corp., Jason Jones, Edward KWAKWA, Stephen P. Lamont [P. Stephen Lamont], Joseph Lecesse, Liberty Capital, Liberty Interactive, Liberty Media Holdings, John C. Malone, Manwin Business Corporation, Greggory Mashberg, Proskauer Rose, NY, Douglas Melamed, Peter L. Michaelson, Carlos Miller, Mobile Streams Inc., Michael
Morgan, Motorola Mobility Inc., Motorola Solutions Inc., Multnomah County Sheriffs
Office, Leo M. Mulvihill, Mulvihill & Rushie LLC, NPR New York Public Radio,

Judge Gloria M. Navarro, New York Times , NY, Obsidian Finance Group, Oregon State Bar
Bulletin, ..., Bob Parsons , AZ, Philly Law Blog,,
Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Marc J. Randazza , NV, Randazza Legal Group, Janine
Robben, Steven Rodgers, Marshall Ross, Kenneth Rubenstein, Jordan Rushie, Bret 78
Sewell, Bruce Sewell, Daniel Staton, Synaptics, Time Warner Cable Inc., Time
Warner Inc., Sean Tompkins, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Matthew M. Triggs, Eric
Turkewitz, Turkewitz Law Firm, University of Montana, Tim Vawter, Mark Vena,
WIPO, David Wang, Kenneth P. White, Michael Whiteacre, Eric Wilbers, Steven Wilker
and XBIZ"

111. That in effort to suppress Cox’s right to file a counter complaint, knowing of her
impoverished condition, a condition wholly caused from these Abuse of Process Lawsuits
filed to Harass and Defame her and strip her of her sites that expose the Criminal Cartel
and force her to bankruptcy through judgments garnered through Fraud on that Court.
Judge Gloria Navarro even has issued a ruling that Cox had to file a brand new lawsuit
for the counter complaint.

The legal rationale for this Order was that Cox’s counter complaint addressed the ongoing conspiracy against Cox due to her publications in relation to the Anderson lawsuit and this RICO lawsuit. It should be noted here that there are an overabundance of related Defendants in both of Cox’s cases and Cox provides excellent linkage for this Court to determine exactly who and how they have related to conspire against her rights, through almost identical Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of
Process as described in the Anderson lawsuit and the legally related to Anderson
lawsuits. That this lawsuit filed by Cox and all pleadings, orders, exhibits, etc. rendered
are hereby by reference incorporated in entirety herein.


112. That defendant in this lawsuit Kashmir Hill, Forbes, New York Times, WIPO, Peter L.
Michaelson, and all defendants of Northern California Case 4:13-cv-02046-DMR
conspired to suppress information that investigative Blogger Cox had been reporting on. 

113. That the defendants in this lawsuit violated anti-trust laws and are creating a media
monopoly that is violating the lawful and constitutional rights of Plaintiff and Cox.

114. That WIPO Panelist Michaelson posted unprivileged defamatory statements in an
international WIPO complaint in regard to Cox being guilty of the crime of Extortion and
that the man she was reporting on, Plaintiff, was also guilty of the crime of Extortion.
Neither, Plaintiff nor Cox had been under investigation of extortion, on trial for extortion
or convicted of extortion.

115. That defendant in this lawsuit Randazza, Cox's ex-Attorney conspired with others to
harass, defame and discredit Cox and the iViewit Story of which she was reporting on
when Randazza sued her and Plaintiff (without proper notice), and acted in conspiracy 
with Las Vegas Judge Navarro, WIPO and Godaddy to shut down massive blogs / online
media owned by Cox and Plaintiff.

116. That defendants in this lawsuit conspired to STOP the flow of information and violate
Cox's First Amendment Rights in order to suppress information regarding the Inventor
Eliot Bernstein’s iViewit Technology Story.


117. That allegedly Oregon attorney in this lawsuit defendant .. told defendant Forbes
reporter defendant Kashmir Hill that Cox had been under investigation by the Oregon
Attorney General, Forbes published this false and defamatory statement to third parties
concerning Cox and caused Cox Harm.

118. That defendant in this lawsuit ... told defendant Forbes reporter defendant Kashmir
Hill that Cox was guilty of extortion, and had extorted him. COX had not been on trial
for extortion nor under investigation for extortion. Defendant Forbes reporter defendant
Kashmir Hill published this false and defamatory statement to third parties concerning
Cox and caused Cox Harm.

119. That defendant in this lawsuit Randazza widely published that Cox was guilty of
extortion as did other defendants of the District of Arizona CASE #: 2:13-cv-00962-
MEA, and this has caused irreparable damage to COX.

120. That defendant in this lawsuit Randazza filed a WIPO complaint to defendant WIPO,
whereby defendant Michaelson was the SOLE Panelist in this matter. Defendant
Randazza filed this complaint against Cox and Plaintiff. Randazza accused Cox and
Plaintiff of the crime of extortion. Michaelson then constructed this as fact, along with
the false and defamatory statements of Forbes reporter Kashmir Hill.

121. That Michaelson published false and defamatory statements regarding Cox in a WIPO
decision regarding domain names. Michaelson accused COX and Plaintiff of the crime of
extortion in this international publication through WIPO.

122. Michaelson and Randazza have caused Cox and Plaintiff irreparable harm and are liable 
for damages caused to Plaintiff. 

Randazza had told members that he represented Cox in the matter of her appeal, and so they stayed away. Randazza's negotiation was exposed by UCLA professor Eugene Volokh to Cox, and Volokh has become Cox's counsel, retained under contract with Mayer Brown for her appeal.

57. That upon my knowledge, information and belief, in retaliation, early in 2012, Porn
Industry Attorney Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, conspired with Attorney
Aman, to set Crystal Cox up for the crime of extortion. Aman initiated this defamatory
campaign with an email out of context to the New York Times that was one email out of
5 in a settlement negotiation with Cox.

... Randazza conspired to discredit and defame Cox and together convinced Judge Hernandez, and from there the world through Big Media and legal bloggers, that Cox had extorted them, though no extortion complaint was ever filed against her or Plaintiff and where once again, Plaintiff is inserted into the decisions accusing him and defaming him in the process now of extortion and more. "

Click Link Below to Read the Full Motion and Source of this post

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

"Troll Down: The Fight Against Big Porn and their Legal Trolls" ; Kenneth P. White of 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 ? 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."


Monday, November 17, 2014

Alexandra Mayers, Monica Foster on Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group; Marc Randazza SUED Monica Foster to SEEK Revenge. Jennifer Randazza has NO Trademark. Monica Foster has First Amendment Rights over her ART. Yet the EVIL Lawless Randazza's SUED Monica Foster for Trademark Infringement and Defamation Issues. Violent Videos Games, Art, and Parody have First Amendment Rights; well for everyone UNLESS they are making fun of, making ART or Parody of the RANDAZZA's that is.

It is CLEAR that Monica Foster's First Amendment Rights TRUMP any claim that Jennifer Randazza, PROXY, for Asshole Husband Marc Randazza, may have against media genius, professional artist, investigative blogger, porn insider and parody creator Monica Foster.

For more on Court Cases on this Topic, Check out the Link Below

I wish that an attorney would represent Monica Foster and counter Sue the Randazza Assholes for BILLIONS, as clearly they knowingly, willfully and wanton SUED this woman outside of the LAW that they know well and are experts in. And they knew they were in the wrong. Another words they did this with "willful and wanton" deliberate intention and they are Financially Liable for Defaming, Harassing, and violating the rights of Monica Foster.

The Randazza's AGAIN abuse court power and process to create victims, to TARGET those who stand up to their tyranny and abuses of the legal process. This is CLEARLY unconstitutional. And guess what, they don't care. You see, you don't want to make and Enemy of a RANDAZZA, or do you? Well I sure did and do, after all I am Crystal Cox SWORN Enemy of Fucktard Marc Randazza, after all.

Hypocritical Asshole Marc Randazza and Lying Slut Jennifer Randazza did this to defame her, traffic her, violate her, stalk her, suppress her speech, violate her human and civil rights and they did so knowing full well that her ART, her PARODY is protected under law and the U.S. Constitution. 

Who can really STOP the Evil Reign of Randazza? 
Well perhaps only God. 
We shall see.

Here are some links on the clear FACT that Monica Foster's art creations and parody are protected under the First Amendment as Mr. Rabid Riddler Randazza and his hypocritical Evil law firm Randazza Legal Group KNOW well, as they are EXPERTS in this area of Law, ALLEGEDLY.

"Easter 2014 - Debt Bondage, Sex Trafficking, Randazza Legal Group & the Porn Industry"


STOP the EVIL Tyranny of Marc Randazza and his Groupies. 

Expose Marc Randazza and his alleged Civil Conspirators I call "the Randazza Legal Groupies" or the Clusterfuck federation of court manipulating fucktards.

STOP Breaking the Law Randazza

Do the Right Thing !!!


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

Research Links for those Researching Cases in which 
the First Amendment Trumps Trademark

First Amendment Trumps Trademark in Call of Duty Case

District Court Holds That First Amendment Trumps Trademark Rights

When does the First Amendment trump trademark law? 11th Circuit adopts Rogers v. Grimaldi test

E.S.S. Entm’t 2000 v. Rock Star Videos: First Amendment Trumps Trademark Rights

EFF to Court: A Trademark Is Not A Censorship Tool

First Amendment TRUMPS Trademark;  Big Ruling Says Using Trademarks In Artistic Works Can Be Protected Under The First Amendment

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

Our speaker will discuss the expanding popularity of the Rogers v. Grimaldi First Amendment defense test and how his firm successfully used the Rogers test to defend a video game industry client in a trademark infringement action."

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

When Does the First Amendment Trump Trademark Law?
11th Circuit Adopts Rogers v. Grimaldi Test

Trademark Laws SHOULD NOT be used to trample First Amendment Rights
"In a blog post titled “NACCP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” Radiance Foundation Inc. (“Radiance”) stated that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) holds “all things liberal, most things socialistic, and nothing pro-life.” On April 24th, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found Radiance liable for trademark infringement and trademark dilution for its use of NAACP’s trademark in its blog post. Radiance Found., Inc. v. NAACP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57431. The court ruled that Radiance violated the Lanham Act, provisions 15 U.S.C. §1114 and 1125, as well as Virginia Code §59.1-92.12(i), VA. Code Ann. § 59.1-92.12(i) (West 2011). Radiance appealed, and the EFF and ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of Radiance.

Building on three prior Circuit Court cases holdings that “artistic or political use of a trademark” and “literary titles” do not violate the Lanham Act “so long as the level of relevance to the underlying work is merely . . . above zero,” the EFF and the ACLU argue that Radiance’s use of the term “NAACP” in an article title was not infringing on a confusion theory. Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002), and E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 547 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir 2008). The brief reasons that “Radiance’s use of NAACP’s trademark in the title of an article was directly relevant to the article’s political goal and did not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the article.”  The brief emphasizes that Rogers, Mattel, and E.S.S. Entertainment showed “that the First Amendment broadly protects cultural reference, commentary, criticism and parody, including when such speech uses anther’s trademark.”"


Roll (Over) Tide! Free Speech Trumps Trademark Rights

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

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

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

Source and More

The First Amendment TRUMPS Trademark 

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

More on Marc Randazza's Hypocrisy

Summary Judgment Denial Marc Randazza v. Crystal Cox case

Randaza v. Cox Docket, Including Counter Claim
Marc Randazza claimed my Gripe sites violated his ALLEGED "Trademark".

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

Blogger Crystal Cox ALLEGES that Adam Steinbaugh is part of a Gang of Attorneys and Media that aid and abet Randazza Legal Group and Marc Randazza in Civil Conspiracy to influence and win court cases.

Adam Steinbaugh blathers this about me, Crystal Cox.

"Adam Steinbaugh <> Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:30 PM
To: Roca Labs Media <>

Thanks for the response.

Are you seriously contending that your removal of the video and quick editing of the "fellow doctor" letter just hours after I raised questions about them is pure coincidence? If not, what was the plan?

Second, you're seriously citing Crystal Cox?

Her claims have been rejected by every court that has heard them, save for the Ninth Circuit appeal (which had nothing substantive to do with Randazza.) It's ironic that you're citing a "consumer gripe site" with confidence that the claims there are accurate -- or, for that matter,coherent.

Third, the court proceeding has literally nothing to do with whether Roca Labs' products are effective or not. It's a contractual dispute as to whether a website can allow your customers can post any negative review, whether it's completely true or thoroughly inaccurate. Leaving aside the question I asked about the litigation, you still have not answered any of the remaining questions I've posed.
Lastly, I fail to see why you've included a screenshot of your Twitter notifications page. Was there a point to this?


I guess I am not coherent to Adam Steinbaugh, poor thing. His ears must be full of sand and he can't make out what I am saying nor the facts of his yammering stupor.

Dear Asshole Adam Steinbaugh,

Yes my CLAIMS have been rejected by the courts, however they are full out 100% True non-the-less.  My allegations are factual to the best of my ability. I am the GOOD GUY. I am a voice for victims of corruption, abuse on the courts, fraud on the courts, rape, assault, domestic violence, estate fraud, forgery, corrupt judges, corrupt attorney and the victims of those who use legal motions and the court process to bully, harass, defame, torture, drive to suicide, get money and other creepy, sick, civil and human rights violations.

I don't care if 10 million people a day claim I am something I am NOT, that does NOT change the facts. I know who I am and so does God. 

I may not use the language you approve of or have proper legal jargon, but I have told the truth to the best of my ability and for no personal gain, regardless of what the circle jerk groupies tell you, regardless of the lies NPR, Forbes and the New York Times have said because they believe these rogue attorneys over me or the TRUTH, regardless of the unadjudicated evidence that judges use in believing attorneys over their targets, I am still HERE, I am still obeying the law, I am still on the right side of the LAW and the Moral Compass where I have ALWAYS been regardless of the horrific, criminal defamatory, life ruining over the top constitutional, civil and human rights violations in which Marc Randazza and his gang of PURE EVIL gang stalking, lying, harassing, defaming THUGS have and continue to do to me.

Funny in the defamatory email above Adam Steinbaugh calls my sites 
about Marc Randazza a "consumer gripe site". WOW. 

WRONG Adam Steinbaugh according to your Laughable Leader Marc Randazza they are a violation of Trademark and so he TOOK THEM in an unconstitutional TRO in which had no prior First Amendment Adjudication and the only evidence Judge Gloria Navarro had and used as adjudicated fact was blogs such as Jordan Rushie's and other Randazza Legal Groupie blogs, this was fact enough to shut down lots of blogs, steal names such as,, and tons more.

Marc Randazza claimed they were a Trademark Violation of his "Good Name" (LOL) and NOT Gripe sites. Two years later he still has the stolen domain names and my search engine ranking was lost long long long ago. And not only that but Godaddy and Rogue Judge, Judge Gloria Navarro, allowed him to change the servers on the domain names and point them to a blog post on his own personal COMMERCIAL legal blog lying about me, painting me in false light, attacking me and defaming me. Oh and don't forget Ya'll, he was my attorney for a bit in my massively high profile First Amendment Case until I FIRED his dumb, over reaching, bullying, cruel lawless, woman hating, egotistical ASS.

There was NO mistaking my blogs as Gripe Sites. 

Yet Mr. Dangerous Dipshit anti-Free Speech tyrant Marc Randazza took them anyway. And then used his bogus SLAPP suit against me to destroy my life, friendships, business relationships and keep me under constant harassment, online attack and surveillance.

He also used his case against me to bully my church, to get private information from friends, clients and third party vendors such as Godaddy and Verizon. Marc Randazza sues ya and then he has the POWER of the courts as an officer of the court to dig into your emails, your bank records, church records, phone records, harass your friends and ex's and well do anything he damn well pleases with no consequence and with total disrespect for the law and the constitutional, civil and human rights of his TARGET whoever that may be.

Marc Randazza is a lying hypocrite. Anyone that actually reads all of the facts of the Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein case, can see that Marc Randazza is a dangerous hypocrite who uses the court system in a very above the law abusive manner in order to win cases and seek REVENGE.

Summary Judgment Denial showing that Dangerous Delusional Dipshit Marc Randazza had no case.

here is the Whole Docket

These Randazza Legal Groupies aKa Gang of Attorneys, Media, Legal Bloggers and lawyers that aid and abet Marc Randazza in pattern and history, case after case, target after target to affect the outcome of cases, forces settlements, win case or do whatever their "AGENDA" is against that particular target. Well they seem to think if they keep lying, making fun, degrading and painting their target in false light that eventually the lie will become the TRUTH. And well often times it works for them, and NOT only in the public court of opinion, but they use these distorted, gang stalking, circle jerk blogs as actual evidence and most judges take it as fact because they are attorneys and their target is not.

No matter how many porn industry attorney groupies cheer for Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group, the Truth will remain the Truth. I tell the TRUTH, I obey the law and I STAND up for Victims of Corruption and Victims of Attorneys who abuse the courts, abuse the power and privilege they have as attorneys and officers of the court and the LIE will not stand in place of the TRUTH on my Watch.

So Adam Steinbaugh I cordially invite you to Go Fuck Yourself. You don't have a clue who I am or what my world changing, AMAZING God Given, landmark, VICTIM liberating court precedence has done to free the victims of guys like your Circle Jerk Hero Marc Randazza.

And, to my Readers;


Tell your Story Nice and Loud on a THOUSAND Blogs.
Expose Rogue Attorneys and Overreaching Judges