Definition of Corruption: "Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power" "The action of making someone or something morally depraved or the state of being so."
the Following eMail, as Seen Below, is from Xin Jiangfor Jessica Park WIPO Case Worker to Crystal Cox and all parties of WIPO Case Number (EP) D2012-1525 was Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 6:44 AM. The Subject is (EP) D2012-1525 <marcjohnrandazza.com> et al. Notification of Panel Appointment.
Subject Matter of WIPO Email to Parties of WIPO Case Number (EP) D2012-1525 is regarding the Notification of Panel Appointment (1-member panel)for Domain Names marcjohnrandazza.com, marcjrandazza.com, and marcrandazza.com.
Eliot Bernstein of iViewit Technologies owns marcjohnrandazza.com, marcjrandazza.com and I, Crystal Cox own marcrandazza.com and having written extensively for over 3 years on the Ivewit, Eliot Bernstein Story.
As you see the WIPO email below certifies that the selected Sole WIPO Panelist Peter L. Michaelson has submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
Here is the EXACT quote from Xin Jiang for Jessica Park WIPO Case Worker, WIPO Case Number (EP) D2012-1525
"In accordance with Rules, Paragraph 7, the above Panelist has submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center."
I, Crystal L. Cox, in my Pro Se Capacity Demand a Copy of Peter L. Michaelson's Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence submitted to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, as noted below, as being in possession of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
In accordance with Paragraph 6(f) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), you are hereby notified that an Administrative Panel ("Panel") has been appointed in the above-referenced case, consisting of a single member:
In accordance with Rules, Paragraph 7, the above Panelist has submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
A copy of the relevant case file will shortly be transmitted to the Panel. If you would like to receive a list identifying materials transmitted to the Panel, please let us know by return email.
Absent exceptional circumstances, the Panel is required to forward its decision to us by September 21, 2012 in accordance with Rules, Paragraph 15.
Parties are reminded of the prohibition contained in Rules, Paragraph 8 against unilateral communications with the Panel.
Sincerely,
Xin Jiang for Jessica Park Case Manager ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 34, chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland T +41 22 338 82 47 F +41 22 740 37 00 E domain.disputes@wipo.int W www.wipo.int/amc
Plaintiff Blogger Crystal Cox Notice of Claim, Notice of Liability; Defendant INTC, Intel Corp., Douglas Melamed personally and professionally, Steven R. Rodger personally and professionally. RICO / Racketeering Lawsuit, District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF.
Crystal L. Cox Investigative Blogger Pro Se Plaintiff District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF Crystal@CrystalCox.com
March 6th, 2013
Steven R. Rodgers Vice President of Legal, Corporate Affairs and Deputy General Counsel of Litigation, Licensing & Patents, Intel Corporation
Regarding: NOTICE of Liability; Notice of Claim Regarding Intel Corporation and Possible Trillion Dollar Fraud on Intel, INTC Shareholders and Others. Notice to all Intel Executives, Shareholders, Board Members, Insurance Providers, Auditors, and all financially connected to Intel Corp., INTC in any way.
Notice Regarding RICO / Racketeering Complaint Filed in District Of Nevada, Liability to INTC, Intel Shareholders and Intel Executives.
District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF names Douglas Melamed, Steven R. Rodgers and Intel Corp. in conspiracy to STOP the flow of information in online media regarding INTC, Intel’s Involvement in the iViewit Technology Theft.
Douglas Melamed, Steven R. Rodgers and Whom It May Concern:
This notice is written upon the Knowledge and Belief of Investigative Blogger Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox. I, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, write this letter to notify you of legal action pending against Intel, INTC in the District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF Lawsuit, whereby Intel Corp., Douglas Melamed, and Steven R. Rodgers are named Defendants.
Notice was sent to Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation, who is named Personally and Professionally, On December 27th 2012 and again in On January 27th 2013. As well as updated court documents. Notices have also been sent to INTC, Intel Corp. General Counsel Douglas Melamed
Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation have, thus far, ignored this serious legal matter, and it is assumed have failed to notify auditors, shareholders, Intel Ceo’s, and all who should be notified of this massive liability to Intel Corp. and INTC Shareholders.
Upon information and belief, the frauds included but are not limited to the failure of Intel Corp., INTC, to disclose both this lawsuit and the Intellectual Property infringement of the iViewit Technology, which is a Trillion dollar liability to Intel, INTC Shareholders and the Intel Corporation.
Intel Corp., INTC executives have known of this massive liability over violations of NDA’s and infringement of the iViewit Video Technology for over a Decade.
Ex-Senior Vice President, General Counsel of Intel Corp., INTC, Bruce Sewell, now General Counsel of APPLE, who is also named in this Federal RICO Lawsuit. Corresponded with Eliot Bernstein regarding this massive undisclosed liability. I, Crystal Cox have attached those correspondences to this Notice of Liability, as well as added links at the bottom of this letter.
APPLE Executive Steven Dowling has also communicated with Eliot Bernstein of iViewit Technology regarding this massive undisclosed liability.
Eliot Bernstein, founder of iViewit Technology Company, and one of the inventors of the iViewit Video Technology, is named as a Defendant in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, which was filed in alleged conspiracy to suppress Internet Blogs, Domain Names and Online Media reporting on the iViewit Technology theft, which involves Intel Corp., INTC, as noted in the iViewit Technology SEC Complaint, RICO Complaint, FBI Complaints, USPTO Complaint and other Federal Investigations into this matter.
In regard to Eliot Bernstein and the iViewit Technology Company, Intel Corp., INTC has massive, undisclosed liabilities and this notice is to warn all those financially tied to INTC, Intel Corporation of this massive liability. Failing to disclose this liability is in direct violation of various SEC laws and rules including but not limited to FASB No. 5 requirements for disclosing liabilities and more.
The Eliot Bernstein and the iViewit Technology Company, also involves an attempted murder of his family and a car bombing that blew up three vehicles in addition to Bernstein Vehicle.
The iViewit Technology theft is a very serious matter, and a massive, undisclosed liability to Intel, INTC shareholders, auditors, and executives. The iViewit Technology theft involves high stakes corporate theft and fraud of a 13 Trillion Dollar Intellectual Property.
Notably, federal Judge Shira Scheindlin referred to the iViewit Case as a case involving Murder that has also been marked as legally “related” by Scheindlin to an ongoing Federal Whistleblower case, the Christine Anderson case. ( Christine C. Anderson,Case No.: 07cv9599 Plaintiff Appellant, (SAS) (AJP), 2d Cir. No. 09-5059-cv v. The State of New York,Defendants-Appellee)
Steven Rodgers Vice President has allegedly conspired with WIPO, ( World Intellectual Property Organization) Director Francis Gurry, and also WIPO Legal Edward Kwakwa and also Eric Wilbers of WIPO, in order to wipe out blogs, online media that report on the iViewit Technology Story and cover up this massive liability by wiping out blogs, changing domain names servers of Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.
I, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, have a web stat that shows WIPO looking at my Notice to WIPO of massive fraud, and then emailing Steven Rodgers of INTC, Intel Corporation.
Eric Wilbers of WIPO has spoke with Eliot Bernstein and Crystal Cox regarding this matter. WIPO has been notified of this massive fraud months ago, that will affect Intel, INTC Shareholders. WIPO has done nothing, that I am aware of, to correct this matter nor to notify executives, insurance providers, shareholders of this massive liability.
Steven Rodgers Intel Corporation knows of the iViewit Technology infringement by Intel, and has failed disclose this liability to Shareholders, Executives, Auditors..
Intel Corp. INTC Shareholders have a massive liability in this matter. This letter is a NOTICE to Intel Corp Executives, Shareholders, Auditors, Liability Carriers, Insurance Provides and more, to disclose this massive liability, that by LAW Intel Corporation, INTC, Must Disclose.
I, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, have attached the Federal RICO Complaint District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF to this eMail notice, as well as documents of Intel’s Connection to this liability.
Here is an Online Link to the RICO Complaint Filed February 26th, 2013 by Plaintiff, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF
Also note that Portland Oregon Law Firm Tonkon Torp LLP and Mike Morgan of Tonkon Torp are also named in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF.
Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Portland represented Intel and represented Enron in their bankruptcy, this is very much connected to the Iviewit Technology case and also brings massive financial liability to the shareholders of INTC, Intel Corp.
There is definite action that Steven Rodgers of INTC, Intel Corporation should have take to disclose this legal action. There is definite action that Bruce Sewell former General Counsel at Intel Corporation should have also taken to disclose this legal action. Bruce Sewell, now General Counsel of APPLE is also a named Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, as is APPLE Executive Steve Dowling.
This Notice of Claim and Liability serves as a warning to INTC, Intel Shareholders, Auditors, Insurance Providers, CEO’s, and all companies and people connected to INTC, Intel Financially for any reason of the massive, pending liability to Intel Corporation, INTC.
INTC, Intel has violated NDA’s with Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Technology. INTC, Intel is named in Federal RICO Complaints, SEC Complaints and more, in regard to massive liability over the infringement of the iViewit Video Technology, which is said to be worth 13 Trillion Dollars.
Knowing the liability that Intel, INTC has over the iViewit Video Technology, and violations of agreements with Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Technology, Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation recently conspired with WIPO and WIPO Panelist Peter L. Michaelson, to take Domain Names from Eliot Bernstein, Founder of iViewit and one of the iViewit Inventors, and Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, who had been reporting on the iViewit Technology theft for 3 years.
Peter L. Michaelson has conspired with the Plaintiff in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Marc J. Randazza, who now is also a named Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, in order to launch a public defamation, disgrace, and discrediting campaign against Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, reporting on the iViewit Technology Theft for over 3 years.
Marc J. Randazza, Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, conspiredby officially stating in WIPO Complaints, WIPO Publications, WIPO Decisions, and WIPO Legal Announcements to the World, that Eliot Bernstein, Founder of iViewit and one of the iViewit Inventors, and Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox are guilty of the crime of extortion, of which neither Eliot Bernstein, Founder of iViewit and one of the iViewit Inventors, nor Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox have been charged with, under investigation for, nor prosecuted of.
This action by Peter L. Michaelson and Marc J. Randazza in WIPO Decisions and in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, was intentional to discredit and silence the reporting of the world’s biggest technology crime. Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox has filed claims against all those conspiring with Plaintiff Marc J. Randazza in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, and the WIPO Decision.
I, Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal Cox, have attached correspondence between Intel, INTC and Eliot Bernstein to this notice. Here are links to further information regarding the massive liability to INTC, Intel Corp. Shareholders, Insurance Carriers and Intel Executives.
Links to Documents proving this massive Liability to INTC, Intel Shareholders, Auditors, Insurance Providers, CEO’s, and all companies and people connected to INTC, Intel Financially for any reason.
I, Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal Cox, am an Investigative Blogger, I have read thousands of pages of documents over 3 years, listened to Senate Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings, read depositions, read billing documents, listening to depositions, read court filings, read NDA agreements, and massive amounts of proof of the liability that Intel has. This is an Important issue and by LAW must be disclosed.
I, Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal Cox, intend to file this Notice with the SEC, 7 days after sending this official notice to INTC, Intel Corporation.
I have read SEC Complaints, RICO Complaints, USPTO Complaints, NDA Agreements, Contracts, and massive amounts of documented proof of the rightful Inventors and owner of the iViewit Technology that 99% of ALL video uses today, and I feel it is my duty to Warn INTC Investors, shareholders, auditors, insurance providers, ceos and more regarding this massive liability.
Upon my knowledge and belief, Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation has directly conspired to silence me, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, as I have been reporting on the iViewit Technology theft for over 3 years. Due to Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation conspiring to remove my online media regarding the iViewit Technology theft, I have filed legal action against Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation personally and professionally, and against the INTC Company for 10 Million Each.
This is a serious and valid Notice of Claim, Notice of Liability and is in response to Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation, Douglas Melamed, and Intel Corp. being named in a Federal RICO, Racketeering Lawsuit, FILED by Plaintiff Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF.
Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF have directly attacked me, defaming me, suppressed my online news media blogs, endangered my life, threatened me, stolen my intellectual property, and ruined my reputation in order to SUPPRESS the flow of information regarding their involvement and liability in the iViewit Technology Theft.
If you are concerned about this serious liability to INTC, Intel Corp. Stocks, Shares, Assets or have questions regarding this legal action, here are Intel Corp., INTC Key Executive, and Contact Information.
"THE DOCTRINE OF PRIOR RESTRAINT" - First Amendment, Freedom of Expression ...
"The concept of prior restraint, roughly speaking, deals with official restrictions imposed upon speech or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication. Prior restraint is thus distinguished from subsequent punishment, which is a penalty imposed after the communication has been made as a punishment for having made it. Again speaking generally, a system of prior restraint would prevent communication from occurring at all; a system of subsequent punishment allows the communication but imposes a penalty after the event.
Of course, the deterrent effect of a later penalty may operate to prevent a communication from ever being made. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons, the impact upon freedom of expression may be quite different, depending upon whether the system of control is designed to block publication in advance or deter it by subsequent punishment.
In constitutional terms, the doctrine of prior restraint holds that the First Amendment forbids the Federal Government to impose any system of prior restraint, with certain limited exceptions, in any area of expression that is within the boundaries of that Amendment. By incorporating the First Amendment in the Fourteenth Amendment, the same limitations are applicable to the states.
Several features of the doctrine should be observed at the outset. In the first place, the doctrine deals with limitations of form rather than of substance. The issue is not whether the government may impose a particular restriction of substance in an area of public expression, such as forbidding obscenity in newspapers, but whether it may do so by a particular method, such as advance screening of newspaper copy. In other words, restrictions which could be validly imposed when enforced by subsequent punishment are, nevertheless, forbidden if attempted by prior restraint.
The major considerations underlying the doctrine of prior restraint, therefore, are matters of administration, techniques of enforcement, methods of operation, and their effect upon the basic objectives of the First Amendment.
Moreover, the doctrine of prior restraint is, in some important respects, more precise in its application than most of the other concepts that have developed out of the First Amendment.
It does not require the same degree of judicial balancing that the courts have held to be necessary in the use of the clear and present danger test, the rule against vagueness, the doctrine that a statute must be narrowly drawn, or the various formulae of reasonableness.
Hence, it does not involve the same necessity for the court to pit its judgment on controversial matters of economics, politics, or social theory against that of the legislature. "
"For nearly 130 years after its adoption, the First Amendment received scant attention from the Supreme Court. Not until World War I brought an avalanche of prosecutions under the Espionage Act did the Court begin to explore the implications of the constitutional guarantee for freedom of expression." Thomas Emerson Doctrine of Restraint
