UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CRYSTAL L. COX,
Defendant, Counter Plaintiff
MARC J. RANDAZZA,
Plaintiffs, Counter Defendant
Declaration / Statement of Facts / Testimony
On or about December 10th, 2011, one of my Bloggers on my Independent Blog Network, contacted me regarding his contacting an attorney named Marc Randazza. (See Exhibit 18)
I had just lost a major free speech case ( Obsidian Finance Group vs. Cox) and he thought Marc Randazza would be a good fit, and may represent me for Free, as he had just had some TSA case in the media.
I had never heard of attorney Marc Randazza, however, I agreed to have a 3 way phone conversation regarding the possibility of me agreeing to allow Mr. Randazza to represent me, in what had quickly become my high profile First Amendment Case. (see Exhibit 18 to show the initial conversation regarding scheduling a conference call, sending court documents.)
On December 6th, 2011 I had previously spoke to UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh. He called me and asked if he could represent me on my Appeal of Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox and with absolutely no cost to me.
Eugene Volokh is a law professor and does not practice law regularly. So he had to get the final approval of the law firm Mayer Brown LLP. Therefore I had not had firm representation yet from him when I spoke with Marc Randazza. And was open to both or either of them representing me on my Ninth Circuit Appeal, at that time.
On my representation conference call with Marc Randazza, we discussed my strategy for my appeal, as well as my strengths and weaknesses and what I was willing to do and not willing to do.
Randazza told me I had made a mess of the case and he would have to look over all the documentation to decide if he would be able to take my case. Randazza told me that Big Media had a monopoly on Free Speech and that is just the way it is.
Randazza attempted to get me to not appeal, by telling me it was best for all of society if I did not appeal. Randazza asked me my strategy, what I was open to in moving forward, and what I was not. He questioned me on many aspects of my intentions for my appeal.
Randazza told me that he represented the Media Association for Bloggers and may have a conflict of interest in representing me, and that he would get back to me after I gave him all of the documents of my case and he checked with them.
On December 15th, As Exhibit 20 shows, Randazza and Volokh were working with, and keeping Cox in the loop on their representation and the case strategy. They were discussing ordering court documents and had phone calls discussion how to best move forward with my case. They were both representing Cox at that time and in talks about the case with the courts, other attorney and Cox.
Thereafter, it came to my attention that Randazza had contacted attorney David Aman, the opposition in my case, and was negotiating a deal that would stop my appeal and somehow change the status of the judgement . Eugene Volokh told me this in a phone call and as you see in emails of Dec. 15th, 2011, in Exhibit 1.
Also in Exhibit 1 and that phone call Eugene Volokh told Cox that Randazza was disccussing, with other First Amendment bar attorneys that he represented Cox and was trying to broker a deal.
I had no knowledge of the details of this negotiation, nor any terms of it and Randazza did not have my permission to present a deal of any kind yet. Especially one without me knowing the detail.
As seen in Exhibit 21, On December 16th 2011 at 9:21 am, I fired Randazza. I told him he does not represent me and that only Eugene Volokh represents me.
Also seen in Exhibit 21, On December 16th 2011 at 12:55 PM Randazza says he has no issue with me doing that and offers to help me in the future in anyway he can.
Exhibit 21 shows that Marc respect Cox, apologized if I felt not treated well and said that
"People like you are important for the future of citizen journalism, and I wish to see you succeed."
It shows he lied about representation. and admits to trying to broker a deal on Cox's behalf, which is the very definition of "representation. Exhibit 21 shows Randazza saying, "I did tell the opposing counsel that I thought a deal might be brokered".
Exhibit 21 shows Randazza saying, "Despite the contents of this email, I wish to let you know that I am sill willing to lend a hand in any way - even in the background."
Cox took her former client, who claimed to humbly respect her, apologize, say people like her were need, at his word. Cox truly believed that Randazza was sincere in letting him know if he could help, even in the background. Cox had lost her home, lost her income and needed a job, this was the help she needed. She simply asked Randazza if he knew anyone or would hire Cox for PR work and yet he maliciously, deliberately and knowing the truth painted to the world that Cox had extorted him. Knowing full well that he did not believe this, he simply want to teach Cox a lesson, intimidate her and ruin her life.
In which he succeeded. He convinced the world Cox was a criminal who had attacked his infant daughter. This ruined Cox's family relationships, business, friendships, ability to rent a home and has left Cox desolate, homeless and unable to rent, to work or to secure clients.
As all exhibits show, Marc Randazza was acting as my attorney. He worked with others in this representation such as Eugene Volokh and the opposition David Aman.
Cox would have kept Randazza on with Volokh had he not lied to her, berated her, presented deals to the opposition without her permission or knowledge of what they were, in her 2.5 million dollar judgment and the appeal.
Randazza retaliated against his former client, and Exhibit 21 proves that he did so with intent, maliciously and after claiming, offering to be of any kind of help.
On January 16th, 2012 Cox emailed Randazza asking for a possible job or job recommendation. On January 17th Randazza emailed Cox back. See Exhibit 17.
Exhibit 17 shows that, though Randazza was upset that Cox registered the domain name he did not believe she had a reasonable or ethical right to own, he did not tell her he believed it was against the law, or extortion in any way.
Randazza is well known for defending the rights of others to have domain names with other people's names in it, such as the Glenn Beck case he was in.
I, Crystal Cox, had also won a WIPO case with the domain names of 3 Proskauer Rose attorneys in them and had one that case, therefore I had no reason to believe it would be an issue.
I, Crystal Cox, assumed he would have no issue with it, as I had read his legal arguments and thought, at the time he was a true proponent of Free Speech rights for all.
Exhibit 17 CLEARLY shows that Counter Defendant Marc Randazza did not have an issue with Cox asking him for a Job.
In fact Exhibit 17 shows clearly, without a doubt that Randazza did not believe he was being extorted, but that in fact, he believed Cox was unreasonable and unethical for registering the domain name, but that she was just asking for a job.
Exhibit 17 proves that Randazza, with full knowledge of it being false, interviewed and flat out lied, made false and defamatory statements to NPR, Forbes, the New York Times, WIPO, the Czech Courts, Tracy Coenen and the Fraud Files, Kenneth White attorney blogger of Popehat.com and numerous other well connected bloggers, and Media around the world. As well as made these false and defamatory statement in courts and on his own blog. KNOWING full well that it was false.
RANDAZZA gave blogger attorney Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com Cox's personal, priviliged, private email to her former attorney who told her to let him know if he could help her in any way, and he used this email to paint Cox in false light, deliberately not posting the whole email thread which showed that he knew Cox was asking for a job.
Therefore because Cox would not simply turn over a domain name he thought she had no right to own, he went on NPR, interviewed with the New York Times, Forbes, Popehat.com, and he viciously, deliberately, knowing it was false, lied, made false statements to WIPO who used their global clout to ruin the lives of Eliot Bernstein and Crystal Cox and accuse them worldwide and nationwide, in legal blogs, in big and small media, that Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein ( who never was even in the email) had extorted him, which is a felony crime.
Cox is entitled to relief for the damage Randazza has caused her, though Cox has no attorney or way to articulate this evidence on a legal basis. Cox has valid claims and exhibit 17 further proves this.
Exhibit 17 shows that Randazza was "deeply offended" and that he did not think Cox was reasonable or ethical. However, Randazza clearly never claimed Cox was extorting him, nor did he believe this at the time. Yet later, in retaliation, he deliberately defamed Cox in a widespread, malicious, willful and wanton campaign of revenge, harassment, and widespread posting and speaking false and defamatory statements against Cox to third parties. This ruined Cox's life, quality of life and business. This also put Cox in constant danger, duress and up against massive, widespread hate in big and small media around the world. And simply for registering a domain name and asking for a job.
Randazza has caused Cox irreparable damage.
Exhibit 17 shows Counter Defendant Marc Randazza Say, "Asking me for a job, or a recommendation? That doesn't bother me in the least." Yet because Cox did not do as he told her to, he retaliated and ruined her life. And told countless media that he was not only bothered by it but put in terror, stress and extreme duress over it. Which was untrue and Exhibit 17 shows this.
Approx. March 30th, 2012, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza began publishing false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox, attacking a 3 year old online. Defendant Kashmir Hill then interviewed, spoke with Counter Defendant Marc Randazza and published these same false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox. (Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 8)
On April 2nd 2012, Defendant Kashmir Hill began publishing false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox, attacking a 3 year old. Plaintiff Crystal Cox had no blog about a 3 year old, made no statements online about this three year old, yet Defendant Kashmir Hill knowingly posted false and defamatory information regarding Counter Plaintiff Cox. (Exhibit 8)
Jordan Rushie, then of Mulvihill and Rushie LLC now an attorney with Randazza Legal Group, published false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Cox, in an article on Philly Law Blow, by Jordan Rushie, Titled " The Evolution of Crystal Cox: Anatomy of a Scammer", dated, April 3rd 2012. Jordan Rushie posted false and defamatory statements regarding Cox being guilty of extortion and attacking a three year old. (Exhibit 7 and 7a, and Exhibit 15)
On April 6th 2012, Bob Garfield interviewed Counter Defendant Marc Randazza on Defendant wNYC, New York Public Radio. The show was called “COMBATING "BAD" SPEECH WITH MORE SPEECH”, Dated, April 06, 2012. On the Media, as Exhibits show. Bob Garfield and Counter Defendant Marc Randazza stated false and defamatory, slanderous statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox. Bob Garfield and Counter Defendant Marc Randazza accused Counter Plaintiff Cox of attacking a child online, of being guilty of extortion, and all manner of unethical and criminal activity. These false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox in this world wide medium of communication has caused Counter Plaintiff Cox immeasurable, irreparable damage. (Exhibit 4)
On Jun 18th 2012, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza filed a Czech court complaint against Counter Plaintiff Cox and Eliot Bernstein, to initiate a domain name dispute. In this case, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza stated false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox. Counter Defendant Marc Randazza used Kashmir Hill, Jordan Rushie and David Carr’s false and defamatory statements as his evidence to steal the intellectual property of Counter Plaintiff Cox.
Essential using his own interviews with them as purported and believed evidence, though it was false and defamatory statements of fact with willful, wanton, deliberate and malicious intent.
On July 27th 2012, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza filed a WIPO complaint against Counter Plaintiff Cox and Eliot Bernstein, to initiate a domain name dispute. In this case, Counter Defendant Marc Randazza stated false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Counter Plaintiff Cox. Counter Defendant Marc Randazza use Kashmir Hill, Jordan Rushie and David Carr’s false and defamatory statements as his evidence to steal the intellectual property of Counter Plaintiff Cox. Counter Defendant Marc Randazza also stated to third party WIPO that Counter Plaintiff Cox was guilty of Extortion and had also extorted him, yet attorney Counter Defendant Marc Randazza had filed no criminal charges against Cox nor allowed her due process of law. ( Exhibit 2)
As Exhibits 2-8 AND 10-16 show Big and Small Media as well as attorney bloggers, radio shows, international intellectual property law, legal publications, the associated press, small and large bloggers and publishers and more picked up the story or were directly told by Randazza false and defamatory statements and told to post his version of the facts, which, as Exhibits show, were clearly false and defamatory and with full knowledge of the law and their falsehood.
This has been written to the best of my knowledge and truest ability.
Cox seeks all allowable relief, as a matter of law for the damage Randazza has done to her.
Crystal L. Cox, Pro Se
Counter Plaintiff / Defendant
Certification of Service
On April 6 , 2015, Crystal Cox certifies mailing a copy of this to:
U.S. District Court
Clerk of Court
333 Las Vegas Blvd. S.
Las Vegas , NV 89101
Exhibit 18 Links
EXHIBIT - Randazza is deeply offended but knows Cox was asking for a job and not attempting to extort him.