NevadaBarComplaint

ComplainingParty:CrystalL.CoxPhone:4066249510eMailSavvyBroker@yahoo.comP.OBox2027PortTownsend,WA98368NameofAttorney:MarcJ.RandazzaLawFirm:RandazzaLegalGroupBarNumber12265PhoneNumber:70242020013625S.TownCenterDr.LasVegas,NV89135

HowMarcRandazzacametobemyattorneyOnoraboutDecember10th,2011,oneoftheBloggersonmyIndependentBlogNetwork,contactedmeregardinghiscontactinganattorneynamedMarcRandazza.(SeeExhibit18).Beforethis,IhadneverheardofMarcRandazza.Ihadjustlostamajorfreespeechcase(ObsidianFinanceGroupvs.Cox),onNovember28th,2011andexpressedthatIintendedtoappealtotheNinthCircuit.ThebloggerthoughtMarcRandazzawouldbeagoodfitandmayrepresentmeforFreeonmyNinthCircuitappeal,ashehadjusthadsomeTSAcaseinthemediaandseemedtobeveryproFreeSpeechrightsforallcitizens.Iagreedtohavea3wayphoneconversationregardingthepossibilityofmeagreeingtoallowMr.Randazzatorepresentme,inwhathadquicklybecomeahighprofileFirstAmendmentCasethataffectedtherightsofallcitizens,bloggers,whistleblowers,andcitizenjournalists.

1

OnDecember6th,2011IhadpreviouslyspoketoUCLALawProfessorEugeneVolokh.HecalledmeandaskedifhecouldrepresentmeonmyAppealofObsidianFinanceGroupv.CrystalCoxandwithabsolutelynocosttome.Iagreedthathecouldrepresentme.EugeneVolokhisalawprofessoranddoesnotpracticelawregularly.SohehadtogetthefinalapprovalofthelawfirmMayerBrownLLP.ThereforeIhadnothadfirmrepresentationyetfromhimwhenIspokewithMarcRandazza.AndwasopentobothoreitherofthemrepresentingmeonmyNinthCircuitAppeal,atthattime.

DiscussiononthatFirstCallOnmyrepresentationconferencecallwithMarcRandazza,wediscussedmystrategyformyappeal,aswellasmystrengthsandweaknessesandwhatIwaswillingtodoandnotwillingtodo.RandazzatoldmeIhadmadeamessofthecaseandhewouldhavetolookoverallthedocumentationtodecideifhewouldbeabletotakemycase.RandazzatoldmethatBigMediahadamonopolyonFreeSpeechandthatisjustthewayitis.Randazzaattemptedtogetmetonotappeal,bytellingmeitwasbestforallofsocietyifIdidnotappeal.Randazzaaskedmemystrategy,whatIwasopentoinmovingforward,andwhatIwasnot.Hequestionedmeonmanyaspectsofmyintentionsformyappeal.RandazzatoldmethatherepresentedtheMediaAssociationforBloggersandmayhaveaconflictofinterestinrepresentingme,andthathewouldgetbacktomeafterIgavehimallofthedocumentsofmycaseandhecheckedwiththem.

AttorneyMarcRandazzaRepresentationofCox

2

AsExhibit19shows,onDecember14th,2011Randazzaconfirmedhisrepresentationofme,CrystalCox.AtthistimeRandazzahadalreadybeganrepresentation,hespoketotheoppositioninmyObsidiancase.Hehadalreadyputintimeandmaterial,hehadtriedtobrokeradealofwhichIhadnoideaofthedetails,andhewasdiscussinghisrepresentationwithotherFirstAmendmentattorneys.Healsotoldtheseattorneyshewasrepresentingmeonappealbeforethisdate.OnDecember15th,2011,AsExhibit20shows,myattorneysMarcRandazzaandEugeneVolokhwereworkingwith,andkeepingmeintheloopontheirrepresentationofmeandthecasestrategymovingforward.Theywerediscussingorderingcourtdocumentsfilingamotionforanewtrial,andhadphonecallsdiscussion,aswellasemailcommunicationonhowtobestmoveforwardwithmycase.Theywerebothrepresentingmeatthattimeandintalksaboutthecasewiththecourts,otherattorneyandme,astherecordshows.Thereafter,itcametomyattentionthatRandazzahadcontactedOregonattorneyDavidAman,theoppositioninmyObsidiancase,andhadbeennegotiating(brokering)adealthatwouldstopmyappealandsomehowchangethestatusofthejudgement.EugeneVolokhtoldmethisinaphonecallandinemailsofDec.15th,2011,inExhibit1.AlsoinExhibit1andthatphonecallEugeneVolokhtoldmethatRandazzawasdiscussing,withotherFirstAmendmentbarattorneysthatherepresentedmeandwastryingtobrokeradeal.Ihadnoknowledgeofthedetailsofthisnegotiation,noranytermsofitandRandazzadidnothavemypermissiontopresentadealofanykindyet.Especiallyonewithoutmeknowingthedetail.Therefore,atthistime,IdecidedtoFireMarcRandazzaspecificallyonthegroundsthathewaspresenting(brokering)deals,discussingmotionstobefiled,andpresentingoptionstotheoppositioninmycasewithtotaldisregardforwhatIwanted,myneeds,or

3

keepingmeinformedonthedetailsofthosedeal/negotiationsthatfullyaffectedme.Andtreatingmewithcompletedisrespect.AsseeninExhibit21,OnDecember16th2011at9:21am,IfiredattorneyMarchRandazza.ItoldhimhedoesnotrepresentmeandthatonlyEugeneVolokhrepresentsme,fromthismoment.IwouldhavekeptRandazzaonwithVolokhhadhenotliedtome,beratedme,andpresenteddealstotheoppositionwithoutmypermissionorknowledgeofwhattheywere,inmy$2.5milliondollarjudgmentandtheappealcase.Randazzaretaliatedagainstmeplainandsimple,andExhibit21provesthathedidsowithintent,maliciouslyandafterclaiming,offeringtobeofanykindofhelp.AlsoseeninExhibit21,OnDecember16th2011at12:55PMRandazzasayshehasnoissuewithmedoingthatandofferstohelpmeinthefutureinanywayhecan.Exhibit21showsthatMarcRandazzaclaimstorespectsme,apologizedifIfeltnottreatedwellandsaidthefollowing:"Peoplelikeyouareimportantforthefutureofcitizenjournalism,andIwishtoseeyousucceed."

OverviewofmyGrievanceMybasiccomplaintisthatamanIthoughtwasmyattorney,whomIgaveprivateinformation,strategy,andsharedmystrengthsandweaknesseswith,usedallIgavehimagainstmetoattempttobrokeradealthatwasnotinmybestinterest,butintheinterestofhispornclients.AllwithtotaldisregardforwhatIwantedandhadexpressedtohimweremywantcasegoals.Randazzaviolatedmyconstitutionalrights,myrightsasalitigant,andtreatedmeextremedisrespect.

4

Ifiredthisattorneywhohadtalkeddowntome,liedtome,misrepresentedme,gaveawaymysecretsandstrategies,triedtotrickmeintonotappealingmy$2.5milliondollarjudgementandtriedtobrokeradealwithoutmyknowledgeorconsent,andagainstmybestinterest.Exhibit21showsRandazzaadmittingtobrokeringadeal,allegedlyonmybehalf,hesaidthis:,"IdidtelltheopposingcounselthatIthoughtadealmightbebrokered".AfterIfiredhimonOnDecember16th2011,andheemailedmeandsaidtolethimknowifhecouldhelpmeinanyway,evenifinthebackground.IcontinuedmycasewithEugeneVolokh.ThenonJanuary16,2012,takingmyformerattorneyathiswordofofferinghelp,inanyway,evenifinthebackground,Iemailedhimaskingforajoborajobrecommendation.Heemailedmebackandattackedme,asseeninExhibits.Andeventhoughhisreturnemailclearlyshowedhimupset,hesaidhedidknowIwasaskingforajob.However,afterthis,heusedapartoftheemailthread,gaveittothemedia,aswellaslegalbloggers,andinternationalreviewboards,andthenmultiplecourts,andpaintedme,hisformerclientouttobeacriminal. Hedidnotfileacriminalcomplaint,yetusedhismediaandlegalconnectionstopaintmeasguiltyforthecrimeofextortion.Heviolatedmy.rightsofdueprocess,myconstitutionalrights,andhedeliberately,withfullknowledgeofitbeingfalse,defamedmeandmadefalsestatementstothirdpartiesaroundtheworld.IncludingNPR,Forbes,theNewYorkTimes,LegalandFraudExperts,WIPO(internationalpublications,domainnamesandintellectualpropertylaw),andheusedhisknowledgeofFirstAmendmentLaw,andhisconnectiontolegalbloggersandbigandsmallmediatopaintmeoutasacriminalworldwide.Itismybelief,thatRandazzaowedmeadutytokeepmyemailprivateandtonotdoanythingadversetomywellbeing.Hehasnowembarkedona3yearcampaignto

5

harassme,intimidateme,sueme,lietocourtsandmediaaboutme,andflatoutruinmylife,family,relationships,reputationandqualityoflife.Ireliedonwhatmyformerattorneysaidaboutmycase,mybestinterest,movingforward,andthathewouldfollowthroughwithwhatwasmywishesandofmybestgood.Ireliedonmyformerattorneyswordofferinghelptomeevenifinthebackground.YetwhenIemailedhim,takinghimuponthatoffer.Hetookthatprivateemailandgaveittolegalbloggers,courts,WIPOandtobigandsmallmediawidespread,paintingmeinfalselight,lyingaboutmeKNOWINGwhatthetruthwasandhassinceruinedmylife.Itookmyformerattorney,whoclaimedtohumblyrespectme,apologized,sayingpeoplelikemewereneed,athisword.ItrulybelievedthatRandazzawassincereinlettinghimknowifhecouldhelpme,eveninthebackground.Ihadlostmyhome,lostmyincomeandneededajob,thiswasthehelpItrulyneeded.IsimplyaskedRandazzaifheknewanyoneorwouldhiremeforPRworkandhemaliciously,deliberatelyandknowingthetruthpaintedtotheworldthatIhadextortedhimandthatIandiViewitInventorEliotBernsteinwerefelony,criminalextortionist,asamatteroffact.Knowingfullwellthathedidnotbelievethis,hesimplywanttoteachmealesson,intimidatemeretaliateagainstme,punishmefornotdoingashetoldmeandchoosinghimasmylawyerinmylandmarkruling,andruinmylifepurposelywithwillfulwantonintent.IreliedonthelegaladviceofMarcRandazza.Randazza,myformerattorneyobstructedmyjustice,violatedmydueprocessrightsandmyconstitutionalrights.MarcRandazzawasnegligentinhislegalrepresentationofme,CrystalCoxandseverelynegligentinhisdutyofcare,ethicsandactionstoharmmeforyearsaftermyappeal,whereherepresentedme.Thisnegligencecausemeinjury,defamedme,causedmeirreparableharm,renderedmyhomeless,pennilessandincitedwordwidehate.

6

Alawyershallusetacticsthatarelegal,honestandrespectfulofcourtsandyetRandazzadeliberatelyliedtothecourtstopaintmeinfalselight,toruinmylifeandbusiness,andtoseveremyfamilyandbusinessconnections.Heusedhisclout,legalknowledgeandcredibilitytoabuseme,violatemydueprocessrights,violatemyconstitutionalrightsandcompletelydestroymylife,business,reputationandpersonalrelationswithdeliberateintentandfullknowledgeofwhathewasportrayingaboutmewasnottrue.Hehimselfdidnotevenbeliefit,asExhibit17clearlyshows,heknewIwasONLYaskingforajob,andsaidhedidnotmindthat.Alawyershallactwithintegrityandprofessionalism,maintaininghisoverarchingresponsibilitytoensurecivilconduct.YetRandazzaclearlydidnotdothis.Alawyer'sdutytothecourtrelatestohisstatusasaprofessionalwhoserves,notonlyclients,potentialclientsandformerclientsbutalsothepublicinterest.Historically,aprofessionalwasdistinguishedfromatradespersonbyapublicdeclarationdemonstratedtodaybytheoathtakenatadmissiontotheBartoserveothersanddevotetheirintellectandeffortstothepublicgood.MarcRandazzaclearlyfailedinhisdutytome,thecourtandthepublic.Alawyer'sdutytothecourtalsorelatestotheprofession'sindependence,orwhathasbeendescribedas"thehighdegreeofautonomythatlawyersexperiencefromexternalcontrolsotherthanthoseimposedbyselfregulation."Selfregulationisaprivilegethatcomeswithsubstantialobligationsthatareintendedtoprotecttherightsofindividuals.Randazzaclearlyhasnotmaintainedintegrityasanofficerofthecourt,butinsteadhasusedhispowerinthecourtstoretaliateagainstthosewhomhehasapersonalissuewithorthosewhoexercisetheirFreeSpeechrightsandspeakcriticalofhimorhiswife,asisourFirstAmendmentRight.Hehasusedthepowerthecourtshavegivehimtoissuefalsesubpoena,scareandbulLypeopleintogivingprivileged,privateinformation,andtofilelegalactionstousemoney,reputationandothertacticstoforcethosehesues,litigants(targets)intotaking

7

whateveractionheistryingtoforcetheminto,beitasettlement,removinggripesites,takingdownparodyorgraphicsthatpokefunathim,reportonhiscasesrepresentingthepornindustryorreallyanythinghedisapprovesof.Thedutytothecourtisalsoimportantbecausethereareconsequencesforlawyerswhodonotupholdit.Thisisdemonstratedbythepenaltiesattachedtocivilandcriminalcontempt.Yetforsomereason,thecourtsseemtoprotectMarcRandazzathoughtheclearly,andinpatternandhistoryacrossmanystates,doesthissamethingtovictimaftervictimandhasmanagedtonothavecontemptchargesagainsthim,thoughIhavetoldthecourtsoverandoverwhatthisattorneyhasdonetomeandtoothersinwhichIpersonallyknowof.Alawyerhasadutytousetacticsthatarelegal,honestandrespectful.Thisdutyisoftenreferredtoasthedutyofcandour.Underthisumbrellaofalawyer'sdutytothecourt,lawyersareprimarilyresponsibleforensuringthattheydonotemploystrategiesthatwillmisleadthecourtthisincludesmisleadingthecourtonevidentiaryandlegalpointsaswellasmakinguseoftacticalstrategiesthatarelikelytoaffectacase.YetRandazzadeliberategavemanycourts,media,legalbloggers,NPR,Forbes,NewYorkTimes,WIPOandmore,falseinformation,falseswornstatementoffactsandhedeliberatelygavethecourtsfalseinformationregardingme,hisformerclientanddidsoinhiswife'scasethroughhislawfirm,againstpornindustrywhistleblowerAlexandraMayers.Randazzarepeatedlymisleadsthecourtandflatoutliestothecourtabouthistargets.Hethenusestheseliesinmediatoforcesettlements,ruinlives,setpeopleupforcrimesandputthemundermassive,endlessstalking,harassmentandstress.Randazzasubmittedfalseevidencetothecourtsregardingme.HedidthisinRandazzav.CoxintheDistrictofNevada,hedidthisinWIPOstatements,inCZECHcourtstatements,hedidthistobigandsmallmedia,inlegalpublicationsandonNationalRadio.

8

MarcRandazzadeliberatelymisledthecourtsonlaws,suchastheTROthatstolemyintellectualpropertyandotherlawsinRandazzav.Cox.Thisisunlawful,unconstitutionalandunethical.Lawyersmustrespectthecourt.Respectcomesinallformspreparednessandtimelinessareoneaspectofconsideration.Beingfamiliarwiththefactsandlawapplicabletoyourcase,andknowingyourclient'spositionisthemostfundamentaldisplayofrespectforthecourtprocess.Thisdutytothecourtis,ineffect,anoverlappingdutyofcompetencywehavetotheclient.Alawyershouldnotabusethecourtprocess.Alawyershouldnotunreasonablyraiseordefendanactionforwhichthereisnolegaljustification.Randazzasuedmetobully,intimidateandsuppressmyspeech.Heshouldnothaveabusedthecourtprocesswithnoreallegaljustification,yethedid.Randazzaknewmypositioninmyappeal,yetwentagainstmywishesandbehindmybacktostrikeadealthatwouldbegoodforthefutureandatthattimecurrentcasesofhisotherclients,thelargeporncompaniesherepresented.Withthishecompletelyviolatedmyrightsofduesprocessanddutiesowedtomeashisformerclient,potentialclient,orcurrentclient.AttorneyMarcRandazzaclearlydisrespectedthecourtprocessand,inhisarroganceanddisrespectofthecourtandthelaws,completelyviolatedmyrightsasaformerclient,alitigantandaU.S.citizen.Whendealingwithothers,alawyershallbecourteous,civilandactingoodfaithwithallpersonswithwhomhedealswithduringthecourseofpractice.YetMarcRandazzaincitedworldwidehateagainstme,filedAmicusBriefs,wentonNPR,filedswornstatements,spoketobigandsmallmediaandmaliciously,deliberatelywithwillfulandwantonintentincitedhated,spreaddefamatorymaliciouslies,anddidnotactcivil,notcourteousandNOTingoodfaith.

9

Alawyer'sdutyofcivilityextendstothoseindividualswhoareintegraltoourlegalprocesssuchaswitnesses.YetMarcRandazzathreatened,bullied,sued,andmaliciouslyattackedmychurch,thoseIworkedfor,ex's,thoseIministertoanddidnotactwithcivilityatall.MarcRandazzaowedmea''standardofcare''inwhichheclearlybreached.LegalMalpracticeisabreachbyanattorneyinthestandardofcareorinthestandardofconductthatisapplicabletoallattorneys.ClearlyRandazzabreachedhisstandardofcarewhenitcomestome,CrystalCox.

DetailsandExplanationofmyGrievanceOnJanuary16,2012at2:30pmIemailedmyformerattorneyMarcRandazza,andaskedhimifheoranyoneheknewwouldhiremeforPRservices.As,withmycase,Ihadlostmyhome,my,business,mywaytomakemoney,andIwasstruggling.Randazzahademailedmepriorandtoldmethatpeoplelikemewereimportant,andthatifhecouldhelpinanyway,evenifonlyinthebackground,tolethimknow.Exhibit21showsRandazzasaying,"Despitethecontentsofthisemail,IwishtoletyouknowthatIamsillwillingtolendahandinanywayeveninthebackground."RandazzaemailedmebackanddemandedthatIgivehimadomainnamethathethoughtIhadnorighttoown.WhenIrefused,hebecameenraged.OnJanuary16,20122:36PM,RandazzaemailedmeandsaidYouwanttomakeanenemyofme,really?AsExhibit17clearlyshows.OnJan17,2012at6:52AM,MarcRandazzaemailedme,asseeninExhibit17andexpressedhisfrustrationwithme,hisanger,andthefactthathedidnotmindmeaskingforajob.WhichshowsheclearlyknewandfullybelievedthatIwasaskingforajob.

10

Yet,hegaveapartofthisemailthreadtoKennethP.White,attorneyandlegalbloggeratPopehat.com,heleakedittoForbes,NPR,theNewYorkTimesandclaimeditwasthecrimeofExtortion.Myformerattorney,wassovengefulhethencontactedtheoppositionandofferedtogiveinformationaboutmetohelpthemwintheircaseAGAINSTME.Allthiswithtotaldisregardformyrightsashisclient,formerclientorhispotentialclient.OnMarch7th,2012,myformerattorneyMarcRandazzacontactedTonkonTorpLawFirm,theOppositioninmyObsidiancaseandheofferedtogivetestimonythatwouldsetmeupforthecrimeofExtortionandtherebyhelpthemtowintheNinthCircuitappeal.Clearly,thiswasunethical,unlawfulandunconstitutional.Thisviolatedmyrightsasaformerclient,andwithtotaldisregardformyrightsasalitigantinthecase,acaseofwhichhehadmyinsideinformation,mysecrets,mystrategyandhadnegotiatedonmybehalf.Randazzainitiatedandwasplanningongivingadepositionagainstme,aclienthehadrepresentedinthatsamecase.Approx.March30th,2012,MarcRandazzabeganpublishingfalseanddefamatorystatementsonhislegalblogaccusingmeofhavingablogabouthischild,attackinganinfantandbeinganextortionist.Noneofwhichweretrueinanywaynoradjudicatedfact.Asnotedabove,Randazzaclearlydidnot,himself,believeIhadtriedtoextorthimbutwasonlyaskingforajob.Thereforehedeliberately,willfullyandwithmaliciousintentpaintedmeinfalselightonhisblog,andfromtheretomediaaroundtheworld.OnApril2nd2012,ForbesReporterKashmirHillbeganpublishingfalseanddefamatorystatementsclaimingthatIhadattackedRandazzaschild,hadablogabouthischild,andhadextortedRandazza.MyformerattorneytoldFORBES,ahouseholdname,thatIwasacriminal,andhepaintedmeouttobeevil,andthereforeruinedmy

11

life,myrelationships,mybusiness.Andhedidso,ALL,withknowledgeitwasfalseandwithmaliciousintent.

OnApril3rd2012,RandazzaLegalGroupattorneyJordanRushiepublishedfalseand

defamatorystatements,accusingmeofbeingascammer,andextortionistandpainting

meouttobeaverybadpersonwhohadcommittedcrimes.

JordanRushieofRandazzaLegalGroupdidthisinanarticleonPhillyLawBlogTitled

"TheEvolutionofCrystalCox:AnatomyofaScammer",dated,April3rd2012.Jordan

RushiepostedfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingCoxbeingguiltyofextortion

andattackingathreeyearold.ThisblogpostisthetopGooglesearchformyname,

andwaspostedwithdeliberateintenttoruinmylife,mybusiness,harmmylegalcase,

pressuremetosettle,stopmyappeal,intimidateme,bullyme,andharassme.

RandazzaLegalGroupattorneyJordanRushiealsohasahateblogagainstmewith

thedomainnameCrystalCox.com.

OnApril6th2012,BobGarfield,NPRreporterinterviewedmyformerattorneyMarcRandazzaonNewYorkPublicRadio.TheshowwascalledCOMBATING"BAD"SPEECHWITHMORESPEECH,Dated,April06,2012.OntheMedia,asExhibitsshow. BobGarfieldandMarcRandazzastatedfalseanddefamatory,slanderousstatementsmaliciouslytotheentireworld,inanationallysyndicatedradioshow.Withfullknowledgeitwasfalseandwithdeliberate,maliciousintenttoharmme.BobGarfieldandMarcRandazzaaccusedmeofattackingachildonline,ofbeingguiltyofextortion,andallmannerofunethicalandcriminalactivity.Thesefalseanddefamatorystatementsinthisworldwidemediumofcommunicationhascausedmeimmeasurable,irreparabledamage.

12

OnApril14th2012,myformerattorneyMarcRandazzafiledaProtectiveOrderAgainstmeintheLasVegasCourts.Ihaveandhadnevermettheman.Hewastheoneattacking,threateningandbullyingmeandusinggangsofattorneys,fraudinvestigators,bigandsmallmediaandradiotoharass,defameandintimidateme.Yethefilesforaprotectiveorderagainstme,hisformerclientofwhichhehaddutiesandObligationsto.OnApril27th,2012,myformerattorney,MarcRandazzacontinuestointerfereinmyNinthCircuitcaseandtryandsetmeup,exposesmysecretstotheoppositionandevenworkswiththemtoattempttoseizemyallegedassetstocovermy$2.5milliondollarjudgement.Randazzahadnoethical,moral,constitutionalorlawfulreasontobeworkingwiththeoppositioninmycase,directlyagainstmybestinterest.Hewasmyformerattorney,hecounseledmeinthecase,heworkedonmotions,transcriptordering,negotiationsandthenheworkswiththeoppositiontocausemeharm.Randazzahelpedtheopposition,TonkonTorpLawyerDavidAmantohelpthemattempttoseizedomainnames,RandazzarecommendsreceiverLaraPearson,ashehadpreviouslyusedherintheRighthavencaseoutofNevada.Myformerattorneythatwasunderoathtoactinmybestinterested,advisedtheOppositionsattorneyDavidAmantouseLaraPearsonasareceivertocomeformyallegedassets.TherewasnootherwayanOregonattorneywouldhavechosethisexactperson.Randazzacontinuedhiscampaigntoharmme.Randazzacontinuedtotelllegalbloggers,lawfirms,reporters,radioandmorethatIhadextortedhimandharmedhischild,hisfamily.Hedidsowithfullknowledgeofitbeingfalse.OnMay11th2012,theOppositioninthecaseObsidianFinanceGroupv.CrystalCox

13

outoftheDistrictofOregon,filedamultimilliondollarlegalactionagainstEliotBernstein.EliotBernsteinhadnotbeenadefendantinthatcase,wasnotnamedanywhereinthatcase,andthejuryhadhappened6monthspriorandfoundCoxliablefor$2.5millionatthattime.ThislawsuitwasfiledasanaddendumtoDistrictofOregon3:11cv00057HZ,DocketEntry136138.Themotion/lawsuitwasdenied,howeverfromthatmomentonEliotBernsteinwasnamedonthedocketasadefendantinthecaseandashavinga$2.5milliondollarjudgementagainsthim,clearlydefaminghim,harminghismultibilliondollartechnologyactionsandcausinghimharassment,stressandendangermenttohimandhisfamily.ThislegalactionwasduetoMarcRandazzasaccusationsagainstCoxandBernsteinandleadingtheoppositionintheObsidiancasetobelievethatwehadextortedhimandwehadassetsthattheOppositioncouldcomefor.Randazzacreatedthisandcounseledtheoppositioninthiscaseonthesematters.OnJun18th2012,MarcRandazzafiledaCzechcourtcomplaintagainstmeandEliotBernstein,whoinventediViewit,avideotechnologythatthepornindustryuses,andsomeonewhoIhavebeenreportingonforover5years.Thiscomplaintwastoinitiateadomainnamedispute.Inthiscase,MarcRandazzastatedfalseanddefamatorystatementsandclaimedthatIandEliotBernsteinhadextortedhim.Hepaintedme,hisformerclient,infalselightandhedruginotherswhomIhadreportedon.MarcRandazzausedthearticlesandblogsofForbesKashmirHill,attorneyJordanRushieandNewYorkTimesreporterDavidCarrsfalseanddefamatorystatementsashisevidencetostealtheintellectualproperty.Eventhoughhehimselfhadcreatedthatallegedevidencebytellingthemflatoutlies,knowingfullwelltheywereliesabouthisformerclient,andeventhoughtheyarehearsay.Essentiallyusinghisowninterviewswiththemaspurportedandbelievedevidence,thoughitwasfalseanddefamatorystatementsoffactwithwillful,wanton,deliberateandmaliciousintent.

14

OnJuly27th2012,MarcRandazzafiledaWIPO(WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization)complaintoutofSwitzerlandagainstmeandEliotBernstein,toinitiateadomainnamedispute.Inthiscase,MarcRandazzastatedfalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningme.HeagainusedForbesKashmirHill,JordanRushieandDavidCarrsfalseanddefamatorystatements,hearsay,ashisevidencetostealmyintellectualproperty.Clearlyknowingitwasfalse,MarcRandazzastatedinswornstatementstoWIPOthatCrystalCoxandEliotBernsteinwereguiltyofExtortionandhadalsoextortedhimpersonally,yetattorneyMarcRandazzahadfilednocriminalchargesagainsteitherofusnorwasIgivendueprocessoflawintheseveryseriousallegations,thatmyformerattorneysworethatIwasguiltofandhadparticipatedin,accordingtohim,asamatteroffact.AstherecordshowsBigandSmallMediaaswellasattorneybloggers,radioshows,internationalintellectualpropertylaw,legalpublications,theassociatedpress,smallandlargebloggersandpublishersandmorepickedupthestoryorweredirectlytoldbyRandazzafalseanddefamatorystatementsandtoldtoposthisversionofthefacts,which,asExhibitsshow,wereclearlyfalseanddefamatoryandwithfullknowledgeofthelawandtheirfalsehood.OnNovember28th,2012,MyformerattorneyMarcRandazzafiledaTrademarkclaimagainstmeintheDistrictofNevada.Case2:12cv02040JADPAL,inordertostealmassiveonlinecontent,domainnamesandblogsandtochillmyonlinespeechthatspokecriticalofhim,reviewedhimandhislawfirmanddiscussedwhathehaddonetomeandtootherswhohavebythencontactedme.MarcRandazzzaclaimedthatIhadviolatedhisTrademarkwithmyGripesitescomplainingabouthowhehadtreatedme,gripingabouthim,andmakingfunofhimandhislawfirm.OnDecember14th,2012,JudgeGloriaNavarroGRANTEDRandazzas

15

ExParteMotionforTemporaryRestrainingOrderandMotionforPreliminaryInjunctionandgavehimmyintellectualproperty,mygripesites,withNOfirstamendmentadjudicationwhatsoever.Theysimplystrippedmyrightsofdueprocessandconstitutionalrights.JudgeGloriaNavarrousedthehearsayevidencethatMarcRandazzagavehertomakethisruling.AndthatevidencewastheJordanRushieblog,ForbesandotherlegalblogsthathehimselfhadtoldpersonallythatIwasguiltyofextortion,andhadattackedhisinfantchild.AndtheWIPOruling,containinghisflatout(sworn)liesthatI,andEliotBernsteinwerecriminalextortionistsandhadcausedhimpersonalharm.JudgeGloriaNavarrousedthisnonadjudicatedhearsayasadjudicatedfactualevidenceandseizedmassiveblogs,domainnames,andonlinecontentofwhichgaveRandazzatopsearchengineplacement.Withtotaldisregardformyrights.JudgeGloriaNavarroalsoruledthatthedomainnameserversbeallowedtobechangedandthedomainsgiventoRandazzawithoutadjudication.Randazzathenusedallmyblogposts,myhardwork,mydecadesofproprietaryknowledge,andsearchengineplacementtoredirecttoONEblogpostonRandazzasesteemedlegalblogattackinganddefamingme,accusingmeofillegalbehaviorandharmingchildren.MarcRandazzafiledthislegalaction,aSLAPPsuit,againstmeintheDistrictofNevada.RandazzasattorneyofrecordinthecasewasRonaldD.GreenofRandazzaLegalGroup.Thisharassingcaseisongoingtothisday.Randazzafiledthiscasetostiflemyspeech,chillmyspeech,removeblogsthatspokecriticalofhimandhislawfirmormadefunofhim,stealdomainnamesthathedidnotwantmetohaveandessential,completelyviolatemyrightsofdueprocessoflaw,myrightsashisformerclient,myFirstAmendmentRightsandmyFreeSpeechRights.MarcRandazza,myformerattorneymadesworncourtstatementsthatIhadextortedhimandhegavethesesworn,falseanddefamatorystatementsashisevidencetofederalcourtwithfullknowledgethattheywerefalse.Myformerattorney,MarcRandazzadidnotfilecriminalchargeswiththeauthorities.Nordidhefilechargeswiththeattorneygeneraloranyotherbodyofauthority,regardinghisallegationsthatIandEliotBernsteinhadextortedhim,wasguiltyofextortionorhadbeeninANYpriorcasewhereIwasinvestigatedandfoundguiltyofthefelonycrimeofextortion.

16

InsteadRandazzausedhispowerofthecourtsandlegalknowledgetocausemeandEliotBernsteinharm,harassanddefameusworldwide.MarcRandazza,anattorneyoflaw,wouldcertainlyknowhowtofilecriminalcharges.Yetinstead,MarcRandazzaviolatedtherightsofhisformerclientanddidnotfilecriminalchargesandtherebyallowmedueprocessoflaw.Instead,thiswellknownattorneyusedworldrenownedmediaoutletssuchasForbes,theNewYorkTimesandNPR,andaninternational,highlyreputablepublicationputoutbyWIPOashiscourtoflaw,judgeandjuryandsimplypronouncedthatIandiViewitInventorEliotBernsteinwasguiltyofthefelonycrimeofextortion.OnNov.30th2012,attorneyandcolleagueofMarcRandazza,PeterL.Michaelson,SoleWIPOPanelist,madehisrulingAGAINSTmeandEliotBernstein,basedSOLELYonthefalseanddefamatory,deliberate,maliciousliesofmyformerattorneyMarcRandazza.AndtheevidencehesubmittedtoWIPO,whichwashearsayarticlesinmediawherehehimselfhadtoldthemthatIandEliotBernsteinwasacriminalextortionist.ThisWIPOrulingwaspublishedworldwideinahighlyesteemedintellectualpropertypublicationanddefamedmethoroughlycausingmeirreparableharm.WIPOthenpublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningmeandiViewitVideoTechnologyInventorEliotBernsteininaWIPOpublication,whichhasawidespread,internationalreaderbase.Inthispublication,WIPOpanelist,attorneyPeterL.MichaelsonflatoutaccusedusoftheCrimeofExtortion,withnodueprocessoflawwhatsoever.AfterattorneyPeterL.MichaelsonsfalseanddefamatorystatementswerepublishedinanInternationalWIPOcomplaintdecision,MarcRandazzaviahisattorneyRonaldD.GreenofRandazzaLegalGroup,usedthispublicationasjudicialevidenceintheDistrictofNevadacasetoharmmeandBernsteinandflatoutstealourintellectualproperty,eventhoughmyformerattorneyMarcRandazzawastheonewhomadetheStatementstoWIPOinthefirstplace. AtthispointthestatementsintheWIPOpublicationmadebyDefendantPeterL.MichaelsonofDefendantWIPOBECAMEofficialevidenceandproofinDefendant

17

RandazzascaseagainstPlaintiffCoxandEliotBernstein(thenDistrictofNevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPAL).Next,JudgeGloriaNavarrousedtheevidence,legalcommentaryandsloughoffalseanddefamatorystatementsmadebyRandazzaasjustificationtogivemassivedomainnamesandintellectualpropertytoMarcRandazzainapreliminaryinjunction.Thiswipedoutthousandsoflinks,wipedoutthesearchenginerankingofmine,deletedmassiveamountsofcontentthatIhadcreatedonline,anddamagedmyintellectualpropertyandonlinemedia.Thisactionbyafederaljudgealsocausedabacklashofdefamation,harassment,retaliationandlossofreputation,clients,friendsandfamily,ofwhichhasbeengoingonforover3yearsnowandIhavenowaytorecover.Ithasrenderedmehomeless,penniless,andwithnowaytorentahome,getclientsorsecureincometosurvive.Myformerattorneypaintedmetotheworldasacriminal,ascammer,anextortionistandsomeonewhoharmschildren.Iamananticorruptionbloggeranddefendtherightsofchildrenaswellasallvictimsofcorruption.Randazzaknewthisandsaidpeoplelikemeareneeded,importantandherespectedme,thenheturnedrightaroundandpaintedalietotheworldanddeliberately,maliciouslyruinedmylife.Andwithdeliberate,insidepersonalknowledgethatwhathewassayingwasindeedfalsestatementsoffact.OnJanuary3,2013theMultnomahCountySheriffintheStateofOregonhadscheduledacourthousestepssaleonmyrighttoappealmyNinthCircuitcaseandtherebyrevokemy2.5millionjudgementandalsofollowthroughwiththerulingonthisimportantissueofbloggershavingequalrightsasamatteroflawasmainstreamnewsjournalistsandtheinstitutionalpress.Myappealhadalreadybeenfiledlongbefore.YettheoppositionhadjustlearnedthattheymaybeabletoSEIZEmyconstitutionalrighttoappeal,asanassettosatisfytheIfthisweretohappentherewouldnolongerbeaNinthCircuitCas.ItwasfiledinanOregoncourtofwhichwasnotconnectedtothelowercourtcaseortheNinthCircuitcase,therebytryingtoslipinanauctionofmyrights,toliterallystealmyrighttoappeal.Iwasmyownattorneyinthepartofthecasethatdealtwithmyassets,oranyjudgementbeingsatisfied.SoIcontactedEugeneVolokh,myNinthCircuitattorney,he

18

thenfiledamotiontoSTAYthesale,filedintheDistrictofOregon3:11cv00057HZatDocument145.Wewonthemotiontostayandstoppedthesalejustintime.Apparentlyitislegaltodothisinsomestatesandnotinothers.OnFebruary11th,2013IhadaphoneconversationwithFloridaAttorneyToddLevine.Iaskedhimaboutproceduressuchasthis.HetoldmethatitusedtobepopularintheStateofFlorida.Thisactionofseizingpeoplesrighttoappealinlieuoftheirdebt/judgementintheoriginalcase. Myformerattorney,MarcRandazza,havingbeenaFloridaattorneyforalongtime,andstartinghiscareerthere,hadbeenveryfamiliarwiththisprocess(scheme)inwhichviolatedtheconstitutionalrightsoflitigantstoappealacase.Randazzahadcounseled,providedinformationtoandbasicallygaveattorneyadvicetotheOppositioninmycasethatwentagainstmybestgood,andtocompletelyshutmedowninmyNinthCircuitappeal.Withtotaldisregardthathehadbeenmycounselpriortothisandowedmeadutyofethics,noconflictsofinterest,nodisclosureofmyinformationinanyway.OnFebruary21st,2013,Docketentry87ofRandazzav.Cox,showsExhibitsofMarcRandazzaemailingCPA,andSummitBankruptcywhistleblowerStephanieDeYoungbullyingherintogivinghimDefendantmyfinancialinformation,andanyinformationonaChurchthatheclaimedIhadstarted.StephanieDeYoungwasnevermyCPAandIhadnotyetstartedachurchatthistime,Randazza,actingashisownattorney,attemptedtogetDeYoungtogivemyprivatefinancialinformation,threateningtosubpoenaher,sueherandotherbullyingtactics.OnMay13th2013,EliotBernsteinfiledamotionregardingfraudonthecourt,andincludedhisbeingharassedbymyformerattorneyMarcRandazza,SeeCaseNumber1:07cv11196SAS,Bernsteinv.AppellateDivisionFirstDepartment,SouthernDistrictofNewYork.Page5681(ExhibitV)

19

OnJanuary17,2014,NinthCircuitCase:1235238ID:8964107,JudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.Hurwitz,CircuitJudgesaccusedmeofhavingahistoryofpostingthingsonlineandseekingmoneyforaretraction.Theydidthisinanappealruling,inwhichIwon.My$2.5millionjudgementwasoverturned.Iwasheadedbacktothelowercourtprose.TheseJudgesusedaNewYorkTimesarticlebyDavidCarr,whichislegallyhearsay,asadjudicatedfact,andsimplythrewintotherulingthatIhadahistoryofextortionatebehavior.Myformerattorneyconspiredwithotherstopaintthispicturetotheworld.TheNewYorkTimesarticlewasNOTadjudicatedfact,norwasitanypartofthelowercourtruling,orcase.YetJudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.Hurwitzsoughtoutthisarticleandusedit,asevidence,asifadjudicatedfact,andpaintedmeouttobeacriminal,withcompletedenialofdueprocessasIamentitled,asamatteroflawandconstitutionalrights.MyformerattorneyMarcRandazzamaliciouslypaintedmeouttobeabadperson,afelonyextortionateandonewhoattacksinfants.JudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.Hurwitz,simplyaddinglib,andthrowingintheseunadjudicatedstatementswasunlawfulandprejudicedmeasIwasheadingbacktothelowercourtProSe.SoIaskedmyNinthCircuitattorneyEugeneVolokhtofileanappealandseekaretractionofthesecriminalallegationsbyanesteemedpanelofhighercourtjudges.Asanactivistlitigant,Ididnotwantthistohappentootherinvestigativebloggers,whistleblowers,andcitizenjournalists,soIappealedthroughmyattorney.AsIfeltthiswasmydutyandobligation.OnJanuary27th2014,RandazzaLegalGroup(RLG)issuedasubpoenatoGodaddy,theNoticeofSubpoenawasDistrictofNevada,andsignedbyLawClerkatRLG,signaturecannotbemadeout,andnoprintedname.TheactualsubpoenatoGodaddysaidDistrictofArizonaonthedocuments,andstatedthataC.DeRoseat5131N.40thSt,A310,PhoenixAZwouldexamineallfinancialdata,electronicallystoredinformation,billingdata,IPdata,serverdata,allphonenumbers,andcontactofanyoneassociatedwithaccountsortothespecifiedpeoplethatRandazzawantedpersonal,financialandintellectualpropertyinformationontobeexaminedonFeb.7th,2014.

20

TheExhibittothissubpoenawasaDistrictofNevadadocumentstatingfurtherpersona,private,andfinancialdatathatRLGwascommandingthatGodaddyturnovertotheminregardtoCrystalCox.ThisSubpoenagaveRLGaccesstotheprivateandfinancialinformationofpornindustryinsiders,whistleblowerssuchasMonicaFosteraKaAlexandraMayerandDianaGrandmason,bothexposingRLGandtheirconnectionstoOrganizedCrimeinthePornIndustry,prostitutionforcedonpornactors,pedophilesconnectedtoRLGandtheactivitiesoftheFreeSpeechCoalitionandRLGtomovethepornindustrytoLasVegas.ThisSubpoenaalsogaveRLGaccesstotheprivatedataandfinancialinformationofiViewitinventorEliotBernstein.OnJanuary27th2014,RandazzaLegalGroup(RLG)issuedaDistrictofNevadasubpoenatoVerizonWireless,theactualSubpoenaisDistrictofNorthernTexas,thissubpoenacommandsVerizon,thoughKlemchukKubastaLLP8150N.CentralExpressway,10thFloorDallas,TXtobeallowedtoinspectdocumentsrequestedonFebruary10th,2014.TheExhibittothesubpoena,aDistrictofNevadadocumentCOMMANDINGthatVerizongiveMarcRandazza,Mypersonalprivateinformation,phonenumbers,personalcalls,businesscalls,billingandpaymentinformation,datathatbreachestheprivacyofcountlessindividualsandcompanies,lawyers,media,clients,customer,andmyfriends.ThissubpoenaalsogaveRandazzaaccesstophonenumbersanddataofsourceswhomhadtoldCoxofissuesoforganizedcrime,prostitutionandmoreinwhichCoxwasreportingonconnectedtoRLG,theFreeSpeechCoalitionandtheOrganizedCrimeinPorn.Includingdelicateandprivateinformation,texts,phonenumbers,contactsofthosewhohavebeenthreatenedbyRLGandconnections.TheSubpoenaalsorequestedallothernumbersontheaccounttherebyunjustlydataminingCoxsfamily,friend,businesspartners,andpersonalrelationships.TheSubpoenaalsoallowedRandazzatoaccesswhomayhelpCoxpayherbills,orhelphertohaveaphone.AsCoxhasnomoney,nohomeandispennilessduetotherelentlessactionsofCox.Thiscompromisestheprivateinformationofthosehelping

21

Coxtohavealifeline,aphone.ThiscouldalsogiveRLGaccesstowhereCoxislocatedatalltimesandasCoxhasstatedmanytimestothecourts,mylifeisinandhadbeenindanger,underconstantduressandthreatsbythoseinthepornindustryconnectedtoRandazzaandthisispotentiallylifeordeathtoCoxandhersources.CoxclaimsRandazzaissuedafalseinstrument,impersonatedaSubpoenaandhascausedCoxandthoseconnectedtoherirreparableharm.RandazzausedhisroleinthiscaseandasanofficerofthecourttogetpeopleinCoxslifetogivehimprivateinformationinwhichheused,nottowinthiscase,buttosetCoxupforthecrimeofextortion,andtobroadcastwhathefoundsuchasprivatechurchtrips,moneyCoxgotinhandouts,andusedhispowertoexposeCoxspersonallife,homeaddress,phonenumber,clients,thosesheministerstoandhersourcesinsidethepornindustry.RandazzagotsubpoenastogetpersonalinformationofDianaGrandmason,certifiedhumantraffickingvictimandMonicaFoster,adultindustryinsiderandinvestigativeblogger,thishadnothingtodowiththelanhamact,trademarkorthemeritsofthiscase.OnJanuary31st2014CoxAppealedherNinthCircuitCaseWin:ID:8961401DocketEntry:48,JudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.HurwitzhadaccusedCoxofhavingahistoryofextortionatebehaviorinaNinthCircuitruling.ThiswasnotadjudicatedfactnorapartoftheObsidianv.Coxcaseorappeal.JudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.HurwitzsimplyusedaNinthCircuitrulingtopaintCoxasacriminaltotheworld.ThiscasefilingsoughtaretractionofthewordsinwhichweretakenfromNewYorkTimesarticle,whichwashearsayandstatedthatIhadahistoryofpostingonlineandthenseekingaretraction.OfwhichIhadnohistorywhatsoeverbeforethiscasepaintedmeinthatfalselight,withdeliberate,maliciousintention.ThiscasefilingENRAGEDmyformerattorneyMarcRandazza.AshisWIPOcase,hiscaseintheDistrictofNevadaagainstme,hisinterviewswithNPR,theNewYorkTimesandForbesandhisstatementstomanylegalbloggersandmultiplemediawouldallbe

22

discreditedifthejudgesretractedthisdefamatorystatementthathadNOrelevancetothecase.Somyformerattorney,wholegally,morally,constitutionallyandethicallywassworntoNOTseekthatiswhichinoppositionofmybestinterest,filedahateful,rageful,accusatory,defamatoryAmicusBrieftotheNinthCircuitAGAINSTme.OnFebruary3rd2014,MarcRandazzaCox'sfiled,ObsidianFinanceGroup,LLCv.CrystalCox:BriefofAmicusCuriae,NinthCircuitCase:1235238ID:8964107DktEntry:493. ItisunconstitutionalandunethicalforRandazzatofilecourtmotionssuchasthis,indirectoppositiontothebestinterestofhisformerclient.Notonlythat,heliedunderoathregardingme,hisformerclient.Knowingfullwellitwasfalse,Randazzaaccusedmeofextortinghim,whenclearlytheemailatExhibit17showsthatheknewIwasaskingforajob.RandazzadidthismaliciouslytoinfluenceahighercourtrulingandtofurtherruinanddefameCrystalCox.MarcRandazzausedtheNinthCircuitcourtsinafraudonthecourtactions,wherebyhedeliberatelyliedandmisledhighercourtJudgestoinfluencethemtoaccusemeofcriminalactivityofwhichIhadneverbeenunderinvestigationfororadjudicatedfor.OnFebruary26th,2014,MartinCain,anotherpersonIhadpreviouslyreportedon,filed:BRIEFOFAMICUSCURIAEMARTINCAIN,NinthCircuitCase:Case:1235238ID:8994409DocketEntry:551.TheAttorneywhofiledthisbriefwassoughtoutforandpaidforbyMarcRandazza.ThisAmicusBriefwasfiledby:AllanB.Gelbard,Esq.LawOfficesofAllanB.Gelbard15760VenturaBlvd.,Suite801Encino,CA91436AllanB.GelbardisacolleagueofRandazzaandwassecuredandpaidforbyMarcRandazzahimself.ThiswasindirectviolationofmyrightsasRandazzasformerclient.

23

OnoraboutMarch5th2014,MarcRandazza,myformerattorneyfiled,Randazzaetal.v.GoDaddyLLCetal.,casenumber20145636CA01,intheCircuitCourtfortheEleventhJudicialCircuitofFlorida.RandazzafiledthislawsuitinFlorida,asheisaFloridaattorneyaswell,andwantedtouseFloridalawsthatwouldfavorhisagendatoobtainmypersonalinformation,billinginformation,phoneinformation,andhomeaddress.Healsousedthislegalactiontoobtainprivateinformation,attackandharassEliotBernstein(iViewitInventor),PornIndustryBloggersandWhistleblowersDianaGrandmasonandAlexandraMayers.DianaGrandmasonisalsoaregisteredHumanTrafficVictim.Ioftenusedtheirblogsassourcesofpostsonmyblogs.Randazzaretaliatedagainstthemaswellforthis.DianaGrandmasonandAlexandraMayersareWhistleblowersandshouldhaveFederalandStateProtectioninthisregard.TheyareconstantlyharassedbyRandazzaLegalGroupandthoseconnectedtoMarcRandazzaaswellasRandazzahimself.These2womenarepornindustryinsidersandhavereportedonorganizedcrimeinthepornindustryforyears.Ihavepickedupafewoftheirstories,andhadRandazzadothesamethingtomeinwhichheandhisassociatesdidtothemandotherpornindustrywhistleblowers.Theyareinconstantdanger,underconstantthreatsandduressbyRandazzaandthoseconnectedtohim.Randazzaetal.v.GoDaddyLLCetal,Florida,wasalegalfilingforabillofpurediscovery,sohecouldsetusallupforthefelonycrimeofextortion,heclaimedtothemediaitwasto''bringextortionclaimsagainstagroupofindividualsallegedlybehindacollectionofdefamatorywebsites''.MarcRandazzaalsotoldmedia''thatagroupledbyCrystalL.Cox,abloggeratthecenterofanotablerecentdefamationcase,hasconspiredtoextortmoneyfromhimbybuyingwebsitedomainnamesrelatedtohisandhisfamilymembers'names,fillingthemwithfalseandharmfulstatementsandseekingpaymentforretractionsofthestatements''.Myformerattorney,didthismaliciouslyanddeliberately,knowingfullwellthatitwasnottrueinanyway.AndthatIhadbeengivennodueprocessontheseallegations.

24

Thislegalaction,Randazzaetal.v.GoDaddyLLCetal,targetedinformationfromGoDaddy,Web.comGroupInc.andSoftLayerTechnologiesInc.thatRandazzaclaimedwasrelevanttohisclaims.Yet,thiswasreallyusedtogetprivateinformationonusalltousetoattackusfurther,defameus,harassus,intimidateus,bullyusandsueusinothercourts.Andashehimselfhasstatedoverandover,tosetusupforthecrimeofextortionasagroup.AtthistimeRandazzatoldLaw360''Coxisawelldocumentedextortionist,Randazzasays,alsodescribingherasbyherownclaimhomelessandlivinginachurchproperty''RandazzaalsoclaimedtoLaw360that''Coxenlistedthehelpofotherindividuals,includingEliotI.BernsteinofFlorida,AlexanderaA.MayersofLasVegasandDianaGrandmaisonofFlorida''ANDTogether,thetortfeasorscontinuetoassistandaidoneanotherinpublishingfalseandharmfulstatementsaboutplaintiffsinaconstantlyshiftingconfigurationofstrawownershipinordertoavoiddetectionbyplaintiffs,legalliabilityfortheirunlawfulactionsandtoconcealthetrueownershipofthesewebsitesanddomainnames,Randazzasays.Myformerattorneyknewthiswasfalse,yetmaliciouslykeptuphisliferuiningharassmentcampaignagainstme.ThesetwowomenweretargetedinthesamewayasIwasandintheirresearchtheycameacrossme,andmethem.SoRandazzatargetedthemalongwithmetostiflefreespeech,toflatoutSTOPtheflowofinformationonlinethatpaintedhiminalessthanfavorablelight.RandazzaandhisAssociateshavestalkedAlexandraMayersandDianaGrandmasonforyears,andduetotheirconnectiontohigherupsinthePornIndustry,theyhavehadnoStateorFederalProtection.RandazzahaspostedthemakeandmodelofAlexandrascar,herhomeaddressandwishedheDeath.IhaveevenbeentoldthathehassaidthatifhethoughtitwouldonlykillherhewouldthrowaMolotovcocktailintoherhome.

25

OnoraboutMarchof2014,MarcRandazzacontactedpeopleIhadworkedfor,gotmypaydocumentsbythreateningtosuethem.Thenpostedthisincourtmotionswhichheleakedtoonlinemediaandisnowaccessibletotheworld.Myformerattorneygotmyinformationunethicallyandbyintimidatingpeopleandthenbroadcastittotheworldviacourtmotionshefiledthenpostedonhisandotherlegalblogsofhisconspirators.AroundthissametimeRandazza,harassed,threatened,bulliedandattackedmychurch.Hescaredthemintogivinghimmyhomeaddress,churchtrips,bankinginformation,phoneinformationandthenhepostedthisinformationonlineandincourtmotionswhichhiscoconspiratorsthenbroadcastworldwide.Allthisputmeindanger.AndthoughIcouldnotrentahomeduetoRandazzasdefamationnorgetanymoreclientstohaveanincome.FromthatpointIcouldnolongerlivinginthechurchhousing,asIwasinfearofmylife,IwasfollowedbyaPrivateInvestigatorhiredbyMarcRandazza,andunderconstantbullyingandattacksfromhisassociatesviaphone,text,email,threatstomykneecaps,threatstocomingtomyhome,andconstantonlinehateandextremedefamation.SinceMayof2013Ihavebeenhomeless,havingbeenunabletoliveinchurchhousingorrentahome.Ihavenowaytomakealiving,andeatviasocialprogramsandchurchhandouts.Alsoaroundthistime,Randazzacontactedandbullied,threatentosue,andharassedmyexs,myformerchurchassociates,andotherpeopleandthreatenedtosuethemiftheydidnottellhimalltheyknewaboutme.RandazzausedhisNevadaSLAPPsuitagainstmeashisauthoritytothesefolkstomakethemgivehimmyprivateinformationwhichheusedtoharmme.OnMarch12th2014(Document1811),DistrictofNevadaRandazav.Cox,myformerattorneyRandazzafiledyetanothersworndeclarationwiththecourt,andflatoutliedinthiscourtdocuments,thatCoxhadExtortedhimandhisfamily.

26

Exhibit17isanEmailfromMarcRandazzatohisformerclientCrystalCoxthatproveshedidnotthinkhisclient'semailtohimwastryingtoextorthim,butinsteadmerelyaskingforajob.OnApril10th,2014RandazzafiledaSLAPPlawsuitagainstPornIndustryInsider,WhistleBlowerandInvestigativeBloggerAlexandraMelodyMayersinDistrictCourt,ClarkCounty,Nevada,EighthJudicialDistrict,CaseA14699072C.Thislawsuitwastosuppressherspeech,shutdownherblogsandremoveherparodyofhimonline.Itwasalsotoharassher,bankrupther,intimidateherandteachheralesson.MyformerattorneyMarcRandazzahadclaimedthatIownedRandazzaNews.comandthatIhadcreatedaparodyofhisdaughter30yearsintothefuture.YethethensuedAlexandraMayers,claimingitwasher.Randazzasuedhetostifleherspeech,shutdownherblogsspeakingcriticalofhimandstoptheflowofinformationonlineregardinghimandhiswifeJenniferRandazza.Randazzav.MayersA14699072C,DistrictCourt,ClarkCounty,Nevada,EighthJudicialDistrict,Department32,wasfiledinordertoteachAlexandraMayersalessonforsupportingme,andhelpingtokeepmevisibleandsafefromthoseinthepornindustrywhohadthreatenedme,intimidatedme,bulliedmeandconstantlyattackedmeonline.ThiscasewasforDefamationandFalseLight,andwasaSLAPPsuitdesignedtochillthespeechofthisbloggerwhomhadtriedtohelpmestaysafe.NevadaattorneyMarcJ.Randazza,hasbeeninvolvedinprostitution,organizedcrime,andpornography.Allwhotryandreportonhimareshutdownsomehowbyhimandhisassociates.OnApril8th2014,IfiledaSupremeCourtAppealregardingNinthCircuitCase:1235238ID:8964107wherebyJudgesArthurL.Alarcn,MilanD.Smith,Jr.,andAndrewD.Hurwitz,accusedmeofhavingahistoryofpostingthingsonlineandseekingmoneyforaretraction.ThiswasflatoutfalseandbasedonlyonaNewYorkTimesarticle,ofwhichRandazzahimselfhadcreatedthemediastormthatpaintedme,hisformerclientouttobeacriminalextortionistandhebroughtinIViewitVideoTechnologyInventorEliotBernstein.ThiscasewasDocketedonApril16,2014,withtheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,seeCrystalCox,Petitionerv.ObsidianFinanceGroup,LLC,etal.Case(1235238,1235319)

27

ATthistimeRandazzav.CoxisstillgoingoninthestateofNevada.IcannotaffordanattorneyandsimplydothebestIcantocontinuetofightformylifeandstandupformyrightsandtherightsofRandazzasothervictims.

NevadaRulesofProfessionalConductRandazzaViolated

CLIENTLAWYERRELATIONSHIP

Randazzadidnotabidebymydecisionsconcerningrepresentation.Hedidnotconsultwithmebeforeproposingadealallegedlyonmybehalfandinmybestinterestwiththeopposition,andhesoughtEXTREMEretaliationwhenIchosetolongerhavehimrepresentmeashisclient.ThisisaViolationofRule1.2.Randazzadidnotabidebymywishesofwantingtoappealandpursuedasettlementwiththeoppositionofwhichhedidnotincludemeinthedetailsofthisnegotiation.RandazzaactedinrepresentationsofCox,withoutinformedconsent.AndthereforeviolatedRule1.2RandazzadidnotdiscusswithmeanyactionsthathethoughtImayhavetakenthathethoughtwerecriminal,ofwhich,asmyattorneyheisobligatedto.Insteadheusedhispoweroverthecourtsandhiscloutwiththemediatodefameme,andabusememassivestressandirreparableharm.IfhethoughtIengagedinanycriminalactivity,itwashislawfulandethicaldutytodiscussthiswithme,insteadofsimplytelltheworldandthecourtsIwasguiltyofacrimewithnoadjudicationordueprocess.Rule1.2.ScopeofRepresentationandAllocationofAuthorityBetweenClientandLawyer.(a)Subjecttoparagraphs(c)and(d),alawyershallabidebyaclientsdecisionconcerningtheobjectivesofrepresentationand,asrequiredbyRule1.4,shallconsultwiththeclientastothemeansbywhichtheyaretobepursued.Alawyermaytakesuchactiononbehalfoftheclientasisimpliedlyauthorizedtocarryouttherepresentation.Alawyershallabidebyaclients

28

decisionwhethertosettleamatter.(b)Alawyersrepresentationofaclient,includingrepresentationbyappointment,doesnotconstituteanendorsementoftheclientspolitical,economic,socialormoralviewsoractivities.(c)Alawyermaylimitthescopeoftherepresentationifthelimitationisreasonableunderthecircumstancesandtheclientgivesinformedconsent.(d)Alawyershallnotcounselaclienttoengage,orassistaclient,inconductthatthelawyerknowsiscriminalorfraudulent,butalawyermaydiscussthelegalconsequencesofanyproposedcourseofconductwithaclientandmaycounselorassistaclienttomakeagoodfaithefforttodeterminethevalidity,scope,meaningorapplicationofthelaw.Rule1.5.Fees.Randazzaviolatedrule1.5ashetoldmehewasrepresentingmeforFREE,ProBono,thenheturnedaroundandwantedmoneytotravel,tofiledocuments,forhotelsandmore.KnowingfullwellthatIhadNOMONEY.

Rule1.6.ConfidentialityofInformation.

Attorney Marc Randazza revealed ALL of my private information, strategy and secrets, notonlytotheoppositionwithoutinformedconsentbuttotheentireworld.He violated Rule 1.5 in revealing my information without informed consent as the chronology aboveclearlyshows.Randazza also violated Rule 1.5 in putting me in physical harm, inciting hate among his peers and the world. And encouraging threats, harassment and online attacks of me. As well as physical threats of coming to my town, of taking out my knee caps, text threatening of knowing

29

whereIliveandmore.Randazza published my home address to the world and used court motions to attack me, then gave those to media to defame me and expose my personal information and home address to the world. All the while claiming I had harmed an infant child, lying about me and inciting world wideHATE.Also under this rule, if he thought I had committed a crime then he went about handling it, completelyunethicalandinviolationofmydueprocessrights.Randazza did not make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client. Therefore he violatedRule1.5.(a)A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation,orthedisclosureispermittedbyparagraphs(b)and(d). (b)A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extentthelawyerreasonablybelievesnecessary: (1)Topreventreasonablycertaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharm (2)To prevent the client from committing a criminal or fraudulent act in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyers services, but the lawyer shall, where practicable,firstmakereasonableefforttopersuadetheclienttotakesuitableaction (3)To prevent, mitigate, or rectify the consequences of a clients criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyers services have been or are being used, but the lawyer shall, where practicable, first make reasonable effort to persuade the client to take corrective action (4)TosecurelegaladviceaboutthelawyerscompliancewiththeseRules (5)To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceedingconcerningthelawyersrepresentationoftheclientor (6)Tocomplywithotherlaworacourtorder. (7)To detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyers change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed informationwouldnotcompromisetheattorneyclientprivilegeorotherwiseprejudicetheclient. (c)A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosureof,orunauthorizedaccessto,informationrelatingtotherepresentationofaclient. (d)A lawyer shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent a criminal act that the lawyer believes islikelytoresultinreasonablycertaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharm.

30

Rule1.7.ConflictofInterest:CurrentClients.

I Randazza had a conflict of interest or felt that Cox was a criminal and did not want to represent her, then he should not have done so. Instead of getting her private information, strategyandsecretsandthenruiningherlife,asdetailsabove,clearlyshow.It is also a conflict of interest for Randazza Legal Group to represent Marc Randazza in suing his former client in the District of Nevada Randazza v. Cox case, as this law firm represented Cox and had a duty and obligation to her before representing another party to sue her, even if that partywasoneoftheirpartnersorownattorneys.Randazza should not have sued me, nor represented himself doing so with the same law firm that representedmeprior.Rule1.7wasclearlyviolatedbyRandazzaRule1.7(a)Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involvesaconcurrentconflictofinterest.Aconcurrentconflictofinterestexistsif: (1)Therepresentationofoneclientwillbedirectlyadversetoanotherclientor (2)There is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyers responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third personorbyapersonalinterestofthelawyer. (b)Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a),alawyermayrepresentaclientif: (1)The lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligentrepresentationtoeachaffectedclient (2)Therepresentationisnotprohibitedbylaw (3)The representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunaland (4)Eachaffectedclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting

Rule1.8.ConflictofInterest:CurrentClients:SpecificRules.

Attorney Marc Randazza should not have engaged in any activity adverse to me, his formerclientandasseenaboveheengagedinmany.

(a)A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire anownership,possessory,securityorotherpecuniaryinterestadversetoaclientunless: (1)The transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and

31

reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonablyunderstoodbytheclient (2)The client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonableopportunitytoseektheadviceofindependentlegalcounselonthetransactionand (3)The client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyers role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representingtheclientinthetransaction. (b)A lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client unless the client gives informed consent, except as permitted or requiredbytheseRules. (d)Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a lawyer shall not make or negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary or media rights to a portrayal or account based insubstantialpartoninformationrelatingtotherepresentation. (e)A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending orcontemplatedlitigation,exceptthat: (1)A lawyer may advance court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which maybecontingentontheoutcomeofthematterand (2)A lawyer representing an indigent client may pay court costs and expenses of litigationonbehalfoftheclient. (f)A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than theclientunless: (1)Theclientgivesinformedconsent (2)There is no interference with the lawyers independence of professional judgment or withtheclientlawyerrelationshipand (3)InformationrelatingtorepresentationofaclientisprotectedasrequiredbyRule1.6. (g)A lawyer who represents two or more clients shall not participate in making an aggregate settlement of the claims of or against the clients, or in a criminal case an aggregated agreement as to guilty or nolo contendere pleas, unless each client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client. The lawyers disclosure shall include the existence and nature of all theclaimsorpleasinvolvedandoftheparticipationofeachpersoninthesettlement. (h)Alawyershallnot: (1)Make an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyers liability to a client for malpracticeunlesstheclientisindependentlyrepresentedinmakingtheagreementor (2)Settle a claim or potential claim for such liability with an unrepresented client or former client unless that person is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonableopportunitytoseektheadviceofindependentlegalcounselinconnectiontherewith. (i)A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matteroflitigationthelawyerisconductingforaclient,exceptthatthelawyermay: (1)Acquirealienauthorizedbylawtosecurethelawyersfeeorexpensesand (2)Contractwithaclientforareasonablecontingentfeeinacivilcase. (l)A lawyer shall not stand as security for costs or as surety on any appearance, appeal, orotherbondorsuretyinanycaseinwhichthelawyeriscounsel. (m)While lawyers are associated in a firm, a prohibition in the foregoing paragraphs,

32

withtheexceptionofparagraph(j),thatappliestoanyoneofthemshallapplytoallofthem. [AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]

AttorneyMarcRandazzastolemyintellectualproperty,defamedmeintentionallyandmaliciously,andcausedmeserioushardship.MarcRandazzadidnothaveacontractwherehelinedoutanyfees,yetheexpectedmetopayforthingsofwhichIhadnorealunderstandingandclaimedtoberepresentingmeProBono,forFREE.MarcRandazzausedprivateinformation,privilegedinformationagainstme.MarcRandazzahadnorighttoportraymetothemediaashedid.MarcRandazzaalsoviolatedtheaboveruleintryingtonegotiatedeals,settlementandrepresentationmattersWITHOUTmyconsentorknowledge.ICLEARLYdidnotgiveMarcRandazzainformedconsent.MarcRandazzaviolatedRule1.8inmassivewidespreadconflictsofinterest.

Rule1.9.DutiestoFormerClients. Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group represented me in pretty much the same issues exactly as RLG then represented Marc Randazza in claims as a Plaintiff against me. This is a violationofthisrule.Marc Randazza and his law firm acted materially adverse to my interests. And did so with full knowledgeanddeliberateintent.ThisviolatesRule1.9Marc Randazza used inside and privileged information he gained while representing me, against metosueme.WhichviolatesRule1.9.MarcRandazzausedinformationagainstmetomydisadvantage.Whichviolatesthisrule.Marc Randazza acquired protected information from me then used this to defame me, set me up for a crime, paint me out to the world as a criminal, sue me, take my blogs and intellectual property, interfere with my appeal, violated my due process laws, violated my constitutional rights, suppress my speech, harass, bully and defame me and my sources and to try and STOP myNinthCircuitappealagainstmywillandmyrights.ThisviolatesRule1.6and1.9.

33

MarcRandazzarevealedinformationaboutme,withoutmyinformedconsent.(a)A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that persons interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent,confirmedinwriting. (b)A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously representedaclient: (1)Whoseinterestsaremateriallyadversetothatpersonand (2)About whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) thatismaterialtothematter (3)Unlesstheformerclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting. (c)A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or formerfirmhasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamattershallnotthereafter: (1)Use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information hasbecomegenerallyknownor (2)Reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit orrequirewithrespecttoaclient.

Rule1.10.ImputationofConflictsofInterest.

Marc Randazza and his law firm RLG violated 1.10 in representing, Marc Randazza and his wife andchildinsuingme,theirformerclient.(a)While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7, 1.9, or 2.2, unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyersinthefirm. (b)When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client representedbytheformerlyassociatedlawyerandnotcurrentlyrepresentedbythefirmunless: (1)The matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly associatedlawyerrepresentedtheclientand (2)Any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) thatismaterialtothematter. (c)A disqualification prescribed by this Rule may be waived by the affected client under theconditionsstatedinRule1.7. (d)Reserved.

34

(e)When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, no lawyer associated in the firm shall knowingly represent a person in a matter in which that lawyer is disqualified under Rule 1.9 unless: (1)The personally disqualified lawyer did not have a substantial role in or primary responsibilityforthematterthatcausesthedisqualificationunderRule1.9 (2)The personally disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matterandisapportionednopartofthefeetherefromand (3)Written notice is promptly given to any affected former client to enable it to ascertain compliancewiththeprovisionsofthisRule. [AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]

Rule1.12.FormerJudge,Arbitrator,MediatororOtherThirdPartyNeutral.

Even if Marc Randazza did not believe he represented me, which he falsely claims, then he was at least acting as an arbitrator, mediator or other third party neutral in his counsleing me via phone and email, his email saying he would represent me, his negotiations with the opposition andhiscommunicationsactingasmyattorneywithEugeneVolokh.WhichviolatesRule1.12.(a)Except as stated in paragraph (d), a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer, or law clerk to such a person or as an arbitrator, mediator or other thirdparty neutral, unless all parties to the proceeding give informed consent confirmed in writing. (b)A lawyer shall not negotiate for employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer, or as an arbitrator, mediator or other thirdparty neutral. A lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge or other adjudicative officer may negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer involved in a matter in which the clerk is participating personally and substantially, but only after the lawyer has notified the judge or otheradjudicativeofficer. (c)If a lawyer is disqualified by paragraph (a), no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyerisassociatedmayknowinglyundertakeorcontinuerepresentationinthematterunless: (1)The disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportionednopartofthefeetherefromand (2)Written notice is promptly given to the parties and any appropriate tribunal to enable themtoascertaincompliancewiththeprovisionsofthisRule. (d)An arbitrator selected as a partisan of a party in a multimember arbitration panel is notprohibitedfromsubsequentlyrepresentingthatparty.

35

Rule1.18.DutiestoProspectiveClient.

Marc Randazza claims in sworn statements that he was not my attorney. Yet he emailed me that he would take representation, he attempted to broker deals, he advised me on the phone and in emails about court transcripts, he told many attorneys he represented me, he discussed filing courtmotionswithattorneyEugeneVolokh,andcounseledmeonmycase.Therefore it is no excuse to have harmed me, defamed me, interfered with my business and personal relationships, only because he thought he was not acting as my attorney prior. Clearly he owed me the same standard of care as a potential client. And Marc Randazza knew this full wellasaseasonedattorneywithhisownlawfirmandinmultiplestates.Marc Randazza violated Rule 1.18 and did not have my informed consent for his disclosure of my private emails, negotiation tactics, strategy, nor to provide information that caused me harm. Andtodosodeliberatelywithmaliciousintent.Mr.Randazzaclaims,underoath,thathewasnotmyattorney.Ifullybelievehewas.However,ifheweretoconvincethisboardthathewasnotmyattorney,thenclearlyhewasbrokeringdealsallegedlyonmybehalf,clearlyhewasworkingwithotherattorneys(EugeneVolokh)andwiththecourtstofileamotionforanewtrial,astheemailevidenceshows,andinthiswasatleastathirdpartyneutral,amediator,orIwasapotentialclient.Inthatheowedmeadutytonotharmme,notpostmyprivateemailstohim,notpaintmeouttotheworldtobeacriminalwithnoadjudicatedfacts,notoffertotestifyagainstme,notfileamicusbriefsinoppositiontomybestinterest,notlieaboutmeanddefameme,protectmyrightsandstrategyinmycase,andactwithintegrityastomybestinterest.IfRandazzawasnotmyattorney,thenhewasnegotiatingwiththeopposition,givingthemmysecrets,strategy,strengthsandweaknesswithoutauthorizationfromme.Rule1.18(a)A person who consults with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a clientlawyer relationshipwithrespecttoamatterisaprospectiveclient. (b)Even when no clientlawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has learned information from a prospective client shall not use or reveal that information, except as Rule 1.9 wouldpermitwithrespecttoinformationofaformerclient. (c)A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that

36

person in the matter, except as provided in paragraph (d). If a lawyer is disqualified from representation under this paragraph, no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph(d). (d)When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined in paragraph (c), representationispermissibleif: (1)Both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, confirmedinwriting,or: (2)The lawyer who received the information took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether torepresenttheprospectiveclientand (i)The disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter andisapportionednopartofthefeetherefromand (ii)Writtennoticeispromptlygiventotheprospectiveclient. (e)A person who communicates information to a lawyer without any reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to discuss the possibility of forming a clientlawyer relationship, or for purposes which do not include a good faith intention to retain the lawyer in the subject matter of the consultation, is not a prospective client within the meaning of this Rule. (f)A lawyer may condition conversations with a prospective client on the persons informed consent that no information disclosed during the consultation will prohibit the lawyer from representing a different client in the matter. If the agreement expressly so provides, the prospective client may also consent to the lawyers subsequent use of information received from theprospectiveclient. (g)Whenever a prospective client shall request information regarding a lawyer or law firmforthepurposeofmakingadecisionregardingemploymentofthelawyerorlawfirm: (1)The lawyer or law firm shall promptly furnish (by mail if requested) the written informationdescribedinRule1.4(c). (2)The lawyer or law firm may furnish such additional factual information regarding the lawyerorlawfirmdeemedvaluabletoassisttheclient. (3)If the information furnished to the client includes a fee contract, the top of each page of the contract shall be marked SAMPLE in red ink in a type size one size larger than the largest type used in the contract and the words DO NOT SIGN shall appear on the client signatureline. [AddedeffectiveMay1,2006asamendedeffectiveApril4,2014.]

COUNSELOR

Rule2.1.Advisor.

Marc Randazza violated Rule 2. Even if Marc Randazza was NOT my attorney as he claims in court, then he was at the very east my counselor. Marc Randazza counseled me on my case, andyetturnedaroundanddeliberatecausedmemalicious,willful,wantonharm.

37

If not a counselor then at least an Advisor, Third Party Neutral or an Intermediary. And stillowedmeadutyofcare,inwhichheclearlyviolated.Rule2.1.Advisor.In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant totheclientssituation. [AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]

Rule2.1(formerSupremeCourtRule167)isthesameasABAModelRule2.1.Rule2.2.Intermediary. (a)Alawyermayactasintermediarybetweenclientsif: (1)The lawyer consults with each client concerning the implications of the common representation, including the advantages and risks involved, and the effect on the attorneyclient privileges,andobtainseachclientsconsenttothecommonrepresentation (2)The lawyer reasonably believes that the matter can be resolved on terms compatible with the clients best interests, that each client will be able to make adequately informed decisions in the matter and that there is little risk of material prejudice to the interests of any of theclientsifthecontemplatedresolutionisunsuccessfuland (3)The lawyer reasonably believes that the common representation can be undertaken impartially and without improper effect on other responsibilities the lawyer has to any of the clients. (b)While acting as intermediary, the lawyer shall consult with each client concerning the decisions to be made and the considerations relevant in making them, so that each client can makeadequatelyinformeddecisions. (c)A lawyer shall withdraw as intermediary if any of the clients so requests, or if any of the conditions stated in subsection 1 is no longer satisfied. Upon withdrawal, the lawyer shall not continuetorepresentanyoftheclientsinthematterthatwasthesubjectoftheintermediation. [AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]

MODELRULECOMPARISON2006

Rule 2.2 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 168) is based on 1983 Model Rule 2.2. The ABA House of Delegates deleted Model Rule 2.2 and incorporated it into the comments to Model Rule 1.7 in 2002. The Rule has been retained in Nevada because Nevada has not adopted comments to theRulesandtheRuleprovidessomeguidanceinclarifyingconflictofinterestconcerns.Rule2.3.EvaluationforUsebyThirdPersons. (a)A lawyer may provide an evaluation of a matter affecting a client for the use of someone other than the client if the lawyer reasonably believes that making the evaluation is compatiblewithotheraspectsofthelawyersrelationshipwiththeclient. (b)When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the evaluation is likely to affect the clients interests materially and adversely, the lawyer shall not provide the evaluation unlesstheclientgivesinformedconsent. (c)Except as disclosure is authorized in connection with a report of an evaluation,

38

informationrelatingtotheevaluationisotherwiseprotectedbyRule1.6. [AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]

MODELRULECOMPARISON2006

Rule2.3(formerlySupremeCourtRule169)isthesameasABAModelRule2.3.Rule2.4.LawyerServingasThirdPartyNeutral. (a)A lawyer serves as a thirdparty neutral when the lawyer assists two or more persons who are not clients of the lawyer to reach a resolution of a dispute or other matter that has arisen between them. Service as a thirdparty neutral may include service as an arbitrator, a mediator or insuchothercapacityaswillenablethelawyertoassistthepartiestoresolvethematter. (b)A lawyer serving as a thirdparty neutral shall inform unrepresented parties that the lawyer is not representing them. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that a party does not understand the lawyers role in the matter, the lawyer shall explain the difference between the lawyers role as a thirdparty neutral and a lawyers role as one who represents a client.

ADVOCATE Marc Randazza acted as my advocate. He spoke with other attorneys, my colleagues, and he told me that people like me are important. He was an advocate for me and turned around and acted with contention, revenge and retaliation. Marc Randazza sued me in a frivolous, life altering oppressive lawsuit. He violated my First Amendment Rights, my rights of due process and acted inextremeagainstmybestinterest.Marc Randazza put me in danger, rendered me homeless and with no way to rent a home nor to get clients and resume my life. as he painted me out as a scammer, and a felony criminal extortionist to the world. Therefore no one would hire me, rent to me and I lost all business and personalconnections.Marc Randazza violated Rule 3.1 in bringing claims against me. And in attempting to set me up forcriminalclaims.Rule3.1.Meritorious Claims and Contentions.A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceedingastorequirethateveryelementofthecasebeestablished.

39

MarcRandazzaviolatedrule3.7inofferingtobedeposedfortheoppositioninmyappealcase.Rule3.7.LawyerasWitness. (a)A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessarywitnessunless: (1)Thetestimonyrelatestoanuncontestedissue (2)Thetestimonyrelatestothenatureandvalueoflegalservicesrenderedinthecaseor (3)Disqualificationofthelawyerwouldworksubstantialhardshipontheclient. (b)A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyers firm islikelytobecalledasawitnessunlessprecludedfromdoingsobyRule1.7orRule1.9. [AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]

TRANSACTIONSWITHPERSONSOTHERTHANCLIENTS

Marc Randazza violated Rule 4.1 and LIED deliberately to others regarding me. As the above chronology clearly shows Marc Randazza knowingly made false statements of fact to others, including and not limited to: WIPO, Forbes, NPR, the New York Times, the Ninth Circuit court, Florida District Court, Nevada State and Federal Court, multiple legal bloggers and law firms, forensic investigators, my friend, my exs, my pastor, my church, my phone vendor, my domain registrar,andmoreThirdParties.Marc Randazza did this with deliberate intention and deliberate knowledge that the false statementsoffactwerefalse. Rule4.1.TruthfulnessinStatementstoOthers.Inthecourseofrepresentingaclientalawyershallnotknowingly: (a)Makeafalsestatementofmaterialfactorlawtoathirdpersonor (b)Fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assistingacriminalorfraudulentactbyaclient,unlessdisclosureisprohibitedbyRule1.6. [AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]

Rule4.4.RespectforRightsofThirdPersons. Marc Randazza deliberately and with clear intention used every mean he could to embarrass, delay, and burden third parties to get private personal information about me. He did this in regard to and not limited to Diana Grandmason, Alexandra Mayers, Stephanie DeYoung, my church, my Pastor, my church secretary, and more. He pressured and threatened them until they gave informationtohim.

40

Rule4.4(a)In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violatethelegalrightsofsuchaperson. (b)A lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored information relating to the representation of the lawyers client and knows or reasonably should know that the document or electronicallystoredinformationwasinadvertentlysentshallpromptlynotifythesender.MarcRandazzaalsoviolatedRule4.4intakingmyprivateemailtohimandsendingittomedia,tolegalbloggersandclaimingitwasextortion.KnowingfullwellthatthefullemailthreadshowedhimsayingthatheknewIwasaskingforajob.

LAWFIRMSANDASSOCIATIONS

Rule5.1.ResponsibilitiesofPartners,Managers,andSupervisoryLawyers. (a)A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conformtotheRulesofProfessionalConduct. (b)A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonableeffortstoensurethattheotherlawyerconformstotheRulesofProfessionalConduct. (c)A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyers violation of the Rules of ProfessionalConductif: (1)The lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involvedor (2)The lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to takereasonableremedialaction. [AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]

Rule5.2.ResponsibilitiesofaSubordinateLawyer. (a)A lawyer is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct notwithstanding that the lawyeractedatthedirectionofanotherperson. (b)A subordinate lawyer does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyers reasonable resolution of an arguable questionofprofessionalduty.MarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupviolatedRule5.1and5.2.

41

INFORMATIONABOUTLEGALSERVICES

Marc Randazza violated Rule 7.1, 7.2 in misleading me that he was an advocate for the free speech of all. He made false statements of being a trademark and first amendment expert then used this law to attack me and as the District of Nevada case, docket entry 200 shows, Marc Randazza did not have a legitimate Trademark claim against me and violated my First AmendmentRights.Marc Randazza violated my rights in violations of this rule as I was clearly mislead as to what he was an advocate for and what he was an expert in. Turned out he was not an expert in Trademark,Firstamendmentordomainlaw.Rule7.1.Communications Concerning a Lawyers Services.A lawyer shall not make a

false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyers services. A communication isfalseormisleadingifit: (a)Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to makethestatementconsideredasawholenotmateriallymisleading (b)Is likely to create an unjustified or unreasonable expectation about results the lawyer can or has achieved, which shall be considered inherently misleading for the purposes of this Rule, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of ProfessionalConductorotherlaw (c)Compares the lawyers services with other lawyers services, unless the comparison canbefactuallysubstantiatedor (d)ContainsatestimonialorendorsementwhichviolatesanyportionofthisRule. [AddedeffectiveMay1,2006asamendedeffectiveSeptember1,2007.]

MODELRULECOMPARISON2007

Rule 7.1 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 195) is the same as ABA Model Rule 7.1 except that paragraphs (b) through (d) are Nevada specific and have no counterpart in the Model Rule. The 2007amendmentschangedlanguageinparagraphs(b)and(d)only.Rule7.2.Advertising. (a)Subject to the requirements of Rule 7.1, a lawyer may advertise services through the public media, such as a telephone directory, legal directory, newspaper or other periodical, billboards and other signs, radio, television and recorded messages the public may access by dialing a telephone number, or through written or electronic communication not involving solicitationasprohibitedbyRule7.3. These Rules shall not apply to any advertisement broadcast or disseminated in another jurisdiction in which the advertising lawyer is admitted if such advertisement complies with the rules governing lawyer advertising in that jurisdiction and the advertisement is not intended primarilyforbroadcastordisseminationwithintheStateofNevada. (b)If the advertisement uses any actors to portray a lawyer, members of the law firm,

42

clients, or utilizes depictions of fictionalized events or scenes, the same must be disclosed. In the event actors are used, the disclosure must be sufficiently specific to identify which persons in the advertisement are actors, and the disclosure must appear for the duration in which the actor(s) appearintheadvertisement. (c)All advertisements and written communications disseminated pursuant to these Rules shallidentifythenameofatleastonelawyerresponsiblefortheircontent. (d)Every advertisement and written communication that indicates one or more areas of lawinwhichthelawyerorlawfirmpracticesshallconformtotherequirementsofRule7.4. (e)Every advertisement and written communication indicating that the charging of a fee is contingent on outcome or that the fee will be a percentage of the recovery shall contain the following disclaimer if the client may be liable for the opposing parties fees and costs: You mayhavetopaytheopposingpartiesattorneyfeesandcostsintheeventofaloss. (f)A lawyer who advertises a specific fee or range of fees shall include the duration said fees are in effect and any other limiting conditions to the availability of the fees. For advertisements in the yellow pages of telephone directories or other media not published more frequently than annually, the advertised fee or range of fees shall be honored for no less than one yearfollowingpublication. (g)A lawyer may make statements describing or characterizing the quality of the lawyers services in advertisements and written communications. However, such statements are subject to proof of verification, to be provided at the request of the state bar or a client or prospectiveclient. (h)Any statement or disclaimer required by these rules shall be made in each language used in the advertisement or writing with respect to which such required statement or disclaimer relates provided, however, the mere statement that a particular language is spoken or understood shallnotaloneresultintheneedforastatementordisclaimerinthatlanguage. (i)Statement regarding past results.If the advertisement contains any reference to past successes or results obtained, the communicating lawyer or member of the law firm must have served as lead counsel in the matter giving rise to the recovery, or was primarily responsible for the settlement or verdict. The advertisement shall also contain a disclaimer that pastresultsdonotguarantee,warrant,orpredictfuturecases. If the past successes or results obtained include a monetary sum, the amount involved must have been actually received by the client, and the reference must be accompanied by adequate information regarding the nature of the case or matter and the damages or injuries sustained by the client, and if the gross amount received is stated, the attorney fees and litigation expenseswithheldfromtheamountmustbestatedaswell.

RandazzahasDutiestoCoxasaformerclientMarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupowedmeaduty,astandardofcare,andhadobligationstomeasaformerclient.MarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupviolatedRule1.9andseriouslyactedadverselyagainstme.Rule1.9.DutiestoFormerClients.

43

(a)Alawyerwhohasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamattershallnotthereafterrepresentanotherpersoninthesameorasubstantiallyrelatedmatterinwhichthatpersonsinterestsaremateriallyadversetotheinterestsoftheformerclientunlesstheformerclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting.(b)Alawyershallnotknowinglyrepresentapersoninthesameorasubstantiallyrelatedmatterinwhichafirmwithwhichthelawyerformerlywasassociatedhadpreviouslyrepresentedaclient:(1)Whoseinterestsaremateriallyadversetothatpersonand(2)AboutwhomthelawyerhadacquiredinformationprotectedbyRules1.6and1.9(c)thatismaterialtothematter(3)Unlesstheformerclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting.(c)Alawyerwhohasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamatterorwhosepresentorformerfirmhasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamattershallnotthereafter:(1)UseinformationrelatingtotherepresentationtothedisadvantageoftheformerclientexceptastheseRuleswouldpermitorrequirewithrespecttoaclient,orwhentheinformationhasbecomegenerallyknownor(2)RevealinformationrelatingtotherepresentationexceptastheseRuleswouldpermitorrequirewithrespecttoaclient.[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]Rule1.7.ConflictofInterest:CurrentClients.(a)Exceptasprovidedinparagraph(b),alawyershallnotrepresentaclientiftherepresentationinvolvesaconcurrentconflictofinterest.Aconcurrentconflictofinterestexistsif:(1)Therepresentationofoneclientwillbedirectlyadversetoanotherclientor(2)Thereisasignificantriskthattherepresentationofoneormoreclientswillbemateriallylimitedbythelawyersresponsibilitiestoanotherclient,aformerclientorathirdpersonorbyapersonalinterestofthelawyer.(b)Notwithstandingtheexistenceofaconcurrentconflictofinterestunderparagraph(a),alawyermayrepresentaclientif:(1)Thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatthelawyerwillbeabletoprovidecompetentanddiligentrepresentationtoeachaffectedclient(2)Therepresentationisnotprohibitedbylaw(3)Therepresentationdoesnotinvolvetheassertionofaclaimbyoneclientagainstanotherclientrepresentedbythelawyerinthesamelitigationorotherproceedingbeforeatribunaland

44

(4)Eachaffectedclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmedinwriting.[AddedeffectiveMay1,2006.]MarcRandazzaandRandazzaLegalGroupviolatedRule1.7inrepresentinghimandhisfamilyinsuingme,aformerclient,andviol