"Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations
and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.
See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech,
N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1."
That subtle reference to Cox's extortionist tendencies is what Cox, and her famed counsel, Eugene Volokh, took issue with in their request for rehearing. They want the court to remove the sentence, which bears little relevance to the holding.
It also implies misconduct on her part, even with "apparently" preceding the claims. Volokh cites media reports where "apparently" was not repeated and argues that such an assertion, which relies on a single source, should not be included.Scott Greenfield, at Simple Justice, is wondering why Volokh is still involved, now that the First Amendment remains intact, and the only issue remaining is the reputation of a blogger with a record of domain squatting, cyber-bullying, and extortion."
Source of Above and Full William Peacock Article
http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circuit/2014/02/update-protected-blogger-wants-elaboration-on-alleged-extortion.html
Crystal Cox Says; Folks, the Issue is NOT about Crystal Cox's reputation.
It is about setting a precedent that will chill the speech of ALL Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers and Whistleblower. It is about making a stand for what is right for the Liberty and Justice of all bloggers "breaking news" that big media refuses to. And reporting on corruption that big media does not dare to.It is not lawful or constitutional to discredit these bloggers by a "pot shot" in a Ninth Circuit Appeal at an Investigative Blogger exposing corruption within the Justice System.
Here we have another attorney flat out saying that Crystal Cox is "with a record" of "extortion", when there is NO Record of Extortion. This is Marc Randazza's Gang Stalking attorney fraternity that distort the facts of cases in order to force settlements, control clients, and control the outcome of legal cases.
The Issue is not about my personal reputation.
I don't care what anyone "thinks" of me, personally.
I care that Judges obey the LAW and the
Constitution of the United States of America.
Constitution of the United States of America.
I Care that this does not happen to other Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers and Whistleblowers. As, I see extremely retaliation by attorneys and judges against bloggers exposing corruption, all the time.
I do not believe is it LAWFUL or the proper venue for Ninth Circuit Judges to make a ruling as important of this and simply toss in that a litigant is a criminal, without that litigant, in this case Crystal Cox, being given due process as a matter of law in the criminal justice system.The accusation of extortion came from the attorneys Crystal Cox was reporting were acting unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional.
The alleged accusation of extortion have not been adjudicated in a court of law, nor has any extortion evidence been presented and reviewed in the criminal justice system. Crystal Cox is an Extortionist is simply something attorneys Marc Randazza, Kevin Padrick, and David Aman created in order to hide their own unethical and unconstitutional actions.
More on the Real Issues of this Motion to Rehear
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit
More on the Real Motives of Marc Randazza
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PJLtqD3SQ_twfQdTClEHNgP-Kt3scT0n6EewWWcNF-Y/edit
A Bit More BULL from the Article Quoted Above, oh and Flat Out Lies
"Mark J. Randazza has a history with Cox. When he turned down her request for representation, she bought marcrandazzasucks.com, along with other domain names using his name.."
http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circuit/2014/02/update-protected-blogger-wants-elaboration-on-alleged-extortion.html
Folks, Marc Randazza seems to be telling attorneys that he turned me down at my request for representation, that is NOT True. He offered to represent me and told others at the First Amendment Bar that he represented me and had long conversations with Eugene Volokh, my current counsel, about his negotiations with the Opposition ( Obsidian's Attorneys).
Marc Randazza DID NOT turn down a request by me.
I did NOT request Marc Randazza to represent me.
There are emails from him posted online and into evidence in Nevada, there is true "evidence" as to the FACT that Marc Randazza did not REFUSE to represent me. I chose Eugene Volokh as I wanted him to be the face of this masssively important social issue. Marc Randazza represented me for about a week, and I let him know he was FIRED. He acted "cool" about it, but then HE retaliated against ME, as the record clearly shows.
I did NOT buy domain names to "retaliate" because this asshole, porn scum attorney would not represent me. I bought domain names, which is my legal and constitutional right and started blogs to expose the aggressive, unethical, unconstitutional behavior and bullying of attorney Marc Randazza and warn the Public at Large. ( to REPORT on his activities, actions and connections to organized crime in the porn industry, and how he and his attorney friends bully insiders, porn actors, whistle blowers and anyone who threatens to expose them.)
I gave MarcRandazza.com to a Porn Industry Investigative Blogger, he posted her car make and model and insinuations of her dying. She was afraid and gave it back, I decided to stand up to Marc Randazza and stand up for all his VICTIMS.
Some More William Peacock BULL
"Or, better yet, the Ninth Circuit could properly take judicial notice of the orders of another court. And there are orders a plenty that describe Cox's conduct, including these two from Randazza's case:
- A district court in Nevada noted that Cox has been "shown to have engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting and cyber-extortion."
- A World Intellectual Property Organization opinion noted that "Respondent then offers to provide 'reputation management' services to her target in return for a fee. Such websites are not 'criticism sites' but merely a pretext for the Respondent's bad faith extortionate use."
THERE were NO "properly adjudicated facts" for the crime of extortion at any time.
The Nevada Court case is another example of Judges simply accusing Cox of extortion in a "pot shot" in a ruling that gave Marc Randazza an unconstitutional preliminary injunction against blogger Crystal Cox.
You know the same Marc Randazza who said:
"“RKA sought extraordinary relief in the form of prior restraint to enjoin .. . This relief is not recognized in this State, nor anywhere else in the Country. In addition to ignoring the First Amendment Rights and almost a century’s worth of common law, the .. court ignored virtually all procedural requirements for the issue of a preliminary injunction.” Page 5 Paragraph ii of Opening Brief Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Irina Chevaldina Appellant vs. R.K./FI Management Inc.;et.al., Appellees. Attorney for Appellant Marc J. Randazza Florida Bar No. 325566, Randazza Legal Group Miami Florida."
More on this Issue
Here is Marc Randazza's hypocritical brief, even though he Got a Preliminary Injunction against me, blogger Crystal Cox.
And the Same Marc Randazza who WON this ruling
"Injuction against blogger critical of Miami Heat owner is overturned by appeals court"
Yet this same Marc Randazza wants an unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction he got against Blogger Crystal Cox, and the judges over reaching "pot shots" in a RULING to Grant Marc Randazza an Unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction that did not adjudicated Crystal Cox's First Amendment Rights, to be some proven, adjudicated evidence that Cox is guilty of the Felony Crime of Extortion? Oh the hypocrisy.
Would you want this to happen to you folks, or would you want due process of LAW?
Is the WIPO "pot shots" evidence that Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein are Extortionists? NO
Oh and YEP, WIPO also takes a "pot shot" and flat out accuse Cox of Extortion and the man she was reporting on, Eliot Bernstein of iViewit Technology, which is the biggest technology theft in the world. WIPO was about Domain Names, and was not about extortion. There was no adjudication for the crime of extortion in a WIPO arbritration panel process. WIPO is not a criminal court. WIPO did not formal investigation into the crime of extortion. A WIPO attorney, a friend and connection of Marc Randazzas from INTA, simply took "pot shots" at Cox and Bernstein to help Marc Randazza paint Cox out as an Extortionist and to discredit the Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Technology Story.
A Bit More ...
"As Randazza notes, one of the most important aspects of the Ninth Circuit's opinion was that it "sent the signal that even criminals deserve First Amendment rights -- thus dispelling the usual truism that 'bad facts make bad law.'" Well played, Mr. Randazza."
Crystal Cox says; it is NOT bad law to want the LAW to apply to ALL Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers and Whistleblowers Equally. It is not bad law to want a clean ruling that affects all those on the ground out there exposing injustice every day. This ruling affects their life, their family, their safety and it is a matter of LAW and Constitutional Rights. Not what the world thinks of me personal, I really do not give a shit what anyone thinks of me. I care about a clean ruling, based in the rule of law rather then the rule of overreaching attorneys and pot shot taking judges that retaliate against those exposing corruption in our justice system and among attorney fraternities.
This is about people's real lives and NOT about Marc Randazza's EGO Trip
Marc Randazza may want some First Amendment ruling that says criminals have First Amendment rights and well he has those as he defends the First Amendment of criminals and yes criminals rightly do have First Amendment. However, Crystal Cox is not a CRIMINAL.
 |
This is the most important aspect, as those reporting on the news that big media will not, and those reporting on corruption that traditional journalists cannot, NEED Equal Protection in the courts so that their SPEECH is not chilled. This is not about all bloggers, not about the rights of the criminals, this is about the Equal Rights, as a matter of law, of legal precedent for Bloggers to report the news and not be afraid of extreme and radical retaliation; especially by attorneys and judges who have all the power.
A Bit More on WIPO, and the Civil Conspiracy, RICO against Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox
Here is the Florida Case, Cox v. Randazza Legal Group
Cox v. WIPO and Peter L. Michaelson, WIPO Panelist
Oh and William Peacock's Last Line
"It's a hilarious ending to one of the least sympathetic people to ever make legal history."
Yes I have made legal history. And I have taken this POWERFUL stand for the rights of all who expose corruption and are victims of corruption. This is a massive constitutional rights issue, human rights issue, and incredibly important as to the equal rights of bloggers to EXPOSE CORRUPTION, as a matter of law.
And NOTE, I don't need or want sympathy from anyone, especially all of you gang stalking, lawless attorney THUGS and the Judges you convince of your "scheme". I have stood without your support my whole life, I think I can handle it if you THUGS and Liars don't like me.
And NOTE, I don't need or want sympathy from anyone, especially all of you gang stalking, lawless attorney THUGS and the Judges you convince of your "scheme". I have stood without your support my whole life, I think I can handle it if you THUGS and Liars don't like me.
I, Crystal L. Cox, DEMAND that Judges and Attorneys Obey the LAW
and Obey the Constitution of the United States of America, PERIOD.
