Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 1 of 27

CrystalL.Cox
ProSeDefendant
Case2:12cv02040GMNPAL
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
DISTRICTOFNEVADA
Case2:12cv02040GMNPAL
Plaintiff,MarcJ.Randazza
AmendedResponse/AnswertoComplaint
vs.
CrystalL.CoxandEliotBernstein,Defendants

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxANSWER

AnswertoAllegationsinIntroductionofComplaint

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDefenseRegardingIntroductionAllegation1.)
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhavenotengagedinanonlineharassmentcampaignagainstany
ofthePlaintiffsinthiscomplaint.InfactPlaintiffhasengagedinanonlineharassment
campaignagainstme,DefendantCrystalCox.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhavenotEVERboughtadomainnamerelatedtoPlaintiffor
anyoneelse,inefforttoextortthemorharasstheminanyway.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxboughtdomainnamesthatwerekeywordrichregardingthe
subjectIwasreportingon,IamaMediaDefendant,anditisstandardofpracticetohavea
domainname,ablogwiththekeywordsrelatingtowhatthatblogisabout.Myblogs
regardingPlaintiffweretoreviewPlaintiffashewasmyattorneyatonetime.Myblogs
werealsotoreportoncasesPlaintiffwasinvolvedin,toParodyPlaintiff,toCriticize
Plaintiff,exercisemyFirstAmendmentRightsandtoreportonmyownlegalcase.
MyblogsregardingPlaintiffwerealsoaPublicserviceastowarnthepublicofimportant
relatedissues,andtoreportonPublicFigureMarcRandazza.
1

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 2 of 27

I,DefendantCrystalCox,neverboughtadomainnamewithPlaintiffslastnameinitto
capitalizeonPlaintiffsnameinanyway,norhaveIorEliotBernstein,thatIknowof,ever
madeANYmoneywhatsoeverregardingdomainnames,orblogswithresembling
Plaintiffsnameorlastnameintheblogs.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhaveeverylegalrighttoownaDomainNameandablogwiththe
nameofanyoneinthetitle,asnotedclearlyinxxx,caseregardingthedomainname
GlenBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirl.com,inwhichPlaintiffMarcJ.Randazza
representedtheDomainNameownerandwontherightforthatpersontocontinueowning
andusingthatDomainName.
RegardingthissameissueofapersonalnameinaDomainName,PlaintiffMarc
RandazzawrotethefollowingquotewhichisaletterfromAttorneyMarcJ.Randazza,
Plaintiffinthiscase,toMatthewA.KaplanOpposingCounsel,andispersonallysigned
byPlaintiffMarcJohnRandazza.
"View1states:Therighttocriticizedoesnotextendtoregisteringadomainnamethatis
identicalorconfusinglysimilartotheownersregisteredtrademarkorconveysanassociation
withthemark.
View2states:Irrespectiveofwhetherthedomainnameassuchconnotescriticism,the
respondenthasalegitimateinterestinusingthetrademarkaspartofthedomainnameofa
criticismsiteiftheuseisfairandnoncommercial.
Naturally,View2istheprevailingviewofAmericanpanelistsandpanelsthatapplyAmericanlaw
toUDRPproceedings.View1seemstobemorepopularwithinternationalpanelistsandpanels
thatapplyEuropeanlaw."
Unfortunately,giventhatUDRPdecisionsregularlyincorporateinternationallegalprinciples,this
casecouldbeassignedtoaforeignpanelistortoanAmericanpanelistwhoapplies
transnationalprinciples.Ipersonallywouldfinditdistressingifthepanelweretomakeadecision
thatcompletelydisregardstheU.S.Constitutioninfavorofaforeignperspectivethatadopts
View1."
"To be candid, we found the fact that Mr. Beck filed this action at all to be most
puzzling. Although, it was obvious why he did not file in a U.S. court given the law
surrounding nominative fair use of trademarks as fully explained in our Brief.
Naturally, a defamation claim as alluded to in Mr. Becks complaint would be
humiliatingly doomed as well in a U.S. court. "

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 3 of 27

The Document Goes on to Say:

"Accordingly, we found it to be most ironic that Mr. Beck, facing the fact that the
U.S. Constitution would stand in his way in a U.S. court, sought to bring this action
before an international domain name arbitration panel.
On March 20, 2009, he said on his show:
Let me tell you something. When you can't win with the people, you
bump it up to the courts. When you can't win with the courts, you
bump it up to the international level.
Of course, we levy no critique at Mr. Beck for seeking to vindicate his perceived
rights in this forum. We do not share his opinion as articulated on March 30, and we
respect his creativity in seeking an alternate avenue where his claims might have a
chance of success. Unfortunately, despite the general wisdom among UDRP
panelists, we find that occasionally they render decisions that make First
Amendment champions cringe."
"We are certain that despite our disagreement with Mr. Becks legal position, that all
parties involved hold equal reverence for the First Amendment. Therefore, I have
prepared a proposed stipulation that will ensure that no matter which panelist is
assigned to this case, the First Amendment will illuminate these proceedings like
rays of light from the Torch of Liberty."
The Document Goes on to Say:
"I am certain that neither party wishes to see First Amendment rights subordinated
to international trademark principles, thus unwittingly proving Mr. Becks point. Lest
this case become an example of international law causing damage to the
constitutional rights that both of our clients hold dear, I respectfully request that
your client agree to stipulate to the application of American constitutional law to
this case. "
Yet, this court continues to favor this SAME attorney as a Plaintiff arguing
the Opposite Defense to his own favor, in Randazza V. Cox.

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 4 of 27

The Document Goes on to Say:

Irrespective of whether the domain name as such connotes criticism, the
respondent has a legitimate interest in using the trademark as part of the domain
name of a criticism site if the use is fair and non-commercial.
Eliot Bernstein nor Crystal L. Cox had commercial sites, nor were they in a
competing business. Eliot Bernstein got domain names in receivership of a debt
Crystal Cox owed him. Crystal Cox used the domain names to seriously criticize
Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc J. Randazza who she had personal experience of,
knowledge of, and who is a Public Figure.
This Hypocrisy of Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc J. Randazza, proves yet again
that he knew this lawsuit was a frivolous waste of the courts time and the
Taxpayers money, yet he sued anyway, in order to retaliate against a woman who
he had once represented and who he did not like or approve her on "online
speech", regarding her experience with him.
Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc J. Randazza is clearly acting outside of the law
and is clearly discriminating in who the Constitution applies to and who it does not.
Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc J. Randazza should be sanctioned and so should
his attorney Ronald D. Green.
The Constitution of the United States and the Laws, should not be disregarded
simply to protect the ego of Attorney Marc Randazza.

I,DefendantCrystalCoxhaveeverylegalrighttomakefunof,reportonandparodyMarc
Randazzaswife.Thiswasnotoutoftheblue,theblogpostsweremakingfunofpostson
MarcRandazzasownblogdiscussingadrunkentrystandknockingherupandhemayas
wellmarryher.IhaveeverylawfulrighttomakefunofMarcRandazzaandhisWife.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhaveneverhadablogregardingPlaintiffsdaughter,thisisafalse
statementbyPlaintiff.IhaveNEVERmadeastatementonlineregardingPlaintiffs
daughter,hehimselfhasdonethis,thatisafact.

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 5 of 27

I,DefendantCrystalCoxhasnotengagedinExtortion.
DefendantEliotBernstein,tomyknowledgehasneverbeenchargedwith,
investigatednorfoundguiltyofthecrimeofExtortion.
IDefendantCrystalCox,haveneversolicitedPlaintiffMarcRandazzaoranyoneelseformoney
toremoveablogpostortoremoveanyofmyinvestigativereportingarticles/blogposts.Ihave
neverboughtadomainnamewiththeintenttoaskformoneyfromanyonethatIreporton.
IDefendantCrystalCoxhaveneverhadacriminalcomplaintfiledagainstmeforExtortion.I
DefendantCrystalCoxhaveneverbeenontrialorinvestigatedforExtortion.IDefendantCrystal
Coxamnotguiltyofextortion.Tomyknowledgeanduponmybelief,DefendantEliotBernstein
hasnotbeenontrialforextortionnorinvestigatedforextortion,norhasthereeverbeena
criminalcomplaintfiledagainstDefendantEliotBernsteinforthecrimeofextortiontomy
knowledge.

I,DefendantCrystalCoxDenyallegationsthatBernsteinhaseverconspiredwithme,
DefendantCrystalCox,oranyoneelsetomyknowledgetoextortorharassanyone.
DefendantBernsteinhasnotactedinconspiracyregardingsaiddomainnames,andreceived
saiddomainnamesinreceivershipinapriorcaseandisnotaproxyinanyway,norhas
DefendantBernsteinbeenanauthoronsaidblogsconnectedtosaiddomainnames.

I,DefendantCrystalCoxhavenotengagedinillegalorunlawfulactsregardingdomain
namesinANYway.

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDefenseRegardingIntroductionAllegation2.)
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhavenotvictimizedanyoneinanybizarrepattern.IamMedia,I
havereportedonhundredsofpeople,corporations,companies,attorneys,cases,judges,
cops,victims,andbusinessesover7yearsinmyonlinemedia,myalternativenews.My
strategyforgettingmyonlinemedia,thestoriesIreportonstronginthesearchenginesis
notaboutmakingvictims,itissimplythelawfulmethodIuseofbeingbetterandstrongerin
thesearchenginethenmycompetition,whichisthosecompetingforthesamesearch
engine,keywords.Mystories,reporting,isnotaboutbaselessaccusations,theyareall
rootedinstoriesIread,depositionsIhaveread,tipsIhavereceived,hearingsIhave
listenedtoorread,documentsIhavereadandareneverbaseless.
5

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 6 of 27

I,DefendantCrystalCoxhavenever,EVER,informedanyonethatIreportonthatIwould
stopreportingonthemiftheypaidme,thatisaFalseAllegationIfirmlyDENY.Ihavenever
escalatedanyreportingduetonotbeingpaid,andIhaveneverbeenpaidtoSTOP
reportingonANYTHING.

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDefenseRegardingIntroductionAllegation3.)
U.S.DistrictofOregonCaseObsidianV.CoxwasaCivilCaseregardingDefamation
AllegationsbyaBankruptcyTrusteeandhadNOTHINGtodowithExtortion,noraDomainName
Disputeinanyway.

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDefenseRegardingIntroductionAllegation4.)
I,DefendantCrystalCoxobjecttoallegationsofengaginginpervasivelinkspammingand
cybersquattingagainstPlaintiff.I,DefendantCrystalCoxwassimplyreportingon,blogging
about,makingfunof,criticizing,reviewingandmakingparodyofPlaintiff.

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDefenseRegardingIntroductionAllegation5.)6.)
I,DefendantCrystalCoxDidNOTbuyMarcRandazza.comtoextortmoneyfromPlaintiff.I
boughtMarcRandazza.comtheverydayIhadaphoneconferencewithPlaintifftobemy
attorneyandboughtMarcRandazza.comtoreportonmyNinthCircuitappealasIknewthat
wouldbeyetanothersearchterminmycase,oncehebeganfilingonmybehalf.
Inever,EVERnamedPlaintiffschildonablogorblogpostever.IhavecalledMs.
RandazzaaSlutandhaveeveryconstitutionalrighttodoso.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhaveneverfalsifiedwrongdoingstodestroyPlaintiffs
Reputation.Plaintiffhas,however,donethattomeinaccusingmeofExtortioninpublished
material.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxNEVERusedMarcRandazza.comasapayperclick,norever
mademoneyfromthissiteinanyway.WhenyoubuyadomainnamefromGodaddy,they
parkthedomainnameandtheyplaceadsonthedomainname.AdsinwhichGodaddy
receivesrevenue,notme,DefendantCrystalCox.
6

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 7 of 27

I,DefendantCrystalCoxNEVERofferedtocleanupPlaintiffsreputation.NorhadIwritten
areviewormadefunofPlaintiffinanywaywhenIaskedforajob.Iwasnosourceof
negativecontentthatIofferedtoremove,thatisafalseallegation.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxNEVERofferedtoremoveanythingIhadposted,forIhadposted
NOTHINGonanyblogaboutPlaintiffwhenIaskedforajob.Ipostedonblogslaterto
defendmyselfafterPlaintiff,whowasonceactingasmyattorney,defamedme,attacked
meandlaunchedahatecampaignagainstme.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxneverboughtadomainnametopressurePlaintiffintodoany
actionwhatsoever.I,DefendantCrystalCoxneverboughtadomainnametotamperwith
awitness.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxOBJECTtonumber8.),Ihaveneverengagedinaschemeto
cyberfly,andneverattemptedtoavoiddomainnameseizure.Thesedomainnames,if
anything,areatthispointaliability.Theycostayearlyfeetorenew,plustheyarethe
subjectofconstantthreatsatthispoint,andcertainlynotanythingtohideinacyberfly
scheme,thatissimplyafalseallegation.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxOBJECTtonumber9.),Ineverofferedthe.metoPlaintiff,I
postedahereKittyKittyJOKEonmyblogabout5MillionDollars,itwasaJOKE.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxDenyviolationsoftheAntiCybersquattingConsumerProtection
Act.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxOBJECTtonumber11.),Ihaveeveryrighttousetheword
Randazzainmyblognames,titlesanddomainnames.Plaintiffissayingthisisnot
defamationandIhaveeverywritetomyopinionyetPlaintiffandthiscourthavealready
wipedoutmassiveblogs,onlinecontentandcensoredmyonlinespeechwithout
adjudicationoftheFirstAmendmentIssuesatconcern.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhaveeveryrighttopushoutmycompetitioninafairmarketplace,
andtorant,andtohaveasmanywebsitesasIplease,thatismyconstitutionalright.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhaveNOTviolatedPlaintiffsConstitutionalorLawfulRights.
Plaintiffhas,howeverviolatedmine.

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 8 of 27

RegardingAllegationsinNumber13.)ClaimsJurisdictionDuetotheLanhamAct,yetthe
LanhamActDoesnotSeemtoBeaCauseofAction.NevadaStateLawsdonothave
jurisdictionovermydomainnames,normyblogs,normyFirstAmendmentRights.
TheFirstAmendmentRightsatissueinthiscasemustbeAdjudicatedbeforedomainnames
canbeseized,blogsdeleted,linksbroken,andintellectualpropertytaken,irreparabledamage
caused.
IfthiscourtdeemsNevadatohavejurisdiction,thentheseblogscanonlybeblockedforthe
StateofNevadaandNOTtheentireworld.
VenueandJurisdictionisImproper.IObjecttoDistrictofNevadahavingJurisdictionoverthis
matter.

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDefenseRegardingJurisdiction
I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxOBJECTtoDistrictofNevadahavingJurisdictionovermy
blogs,myrights,mydomainnames,myconstitutionalrightsandPlaintiffsallegationsinthis
matter.

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDefenseRegardingTheParties
I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxOBJECTtoPlaintiffbeingaMinor,thisisunlawful,

unconstitutionalandImmoral.
AlsounderThePartiesislistedlargeamountsofDomainNames,.blogspotblognames.I,Pro

SeDefendantCrystalCoxOBJECTtoPlaintiffhavinganyrighttosaidDomainNamesin
anyway.I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxdonotownany.blogspotblog,thoseareowned
byGOOGLE,Iamablogauthor,exercisingmyFirstAmendmentRightsanddonotown
blogspotinanyway.
Regarding22.)EliotBernsteinisNOTaProxy,norhasEVERbeenaproxyofanykindinregard
toCrystalCoxandhaseverylegalrighttoownMarcJRandazza.com,FuckMarcRandazza.com,
MarcRandazzaSucks.com,andMarcRandazzaIsALyingAsshole.com.Plaintiffsnameorlast
nameisNOTahouseholdnameandPlaintiffhasnoTrademarkontheseNames,period.
ThereisnowaythatFuckMarcRandazza.com,MarcRandazzaSucks.com,and
MarcRandazzaIsALyingAsshole.comcouldbeconfusinglysimilartoRandazzaLegalGroups
BlogorWebsite.Theyareobviousgripesites,criticalsites,againstPlaintiffandnoreasonable
readerwouldconfusethemwithPlaintiffscommercialblogorwebsiteinANYway.
8

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 9 of 27

DefendantCrystalCoxhasaLegalRighttooperate/ownalldomainnameslistedinnumber
20.)ofthiscomplaint,andnonewouldbeconfusedastobePlaintiffscommercialsite.
ThereisabsolutelynowaythatareasonablereaderoraneutralJurywouldeversee
MarcRandazzSucks.com,FuckMarcRandazza.com,HypocriteMarcRandazza.com,
TrollMarcRandazza.com,MarcRandazzaisALyingingAsshole.com,
RandazzaLegalGroupSucks.com,asaconfusingorsimilartradename.Thereisnowaythat
thosedomainnameswouldcauseconfusionastothesourceandoriginoftheServices.
Thereisnowaywhatsoeverthatthereislikelytocauseconfusionastothesourceandorigin
ofservicesinregardtotheseandotherdomainnamesinconnectionwiththiscase:
MarcRandazzSucks.com,FuckMarcRandazza.com,HypocriteMarcRandazza.com,
TrollMarcRandazza.com,MarcRandazzaisALyingingAsshole.com.ThereisaClear,
NONConfusingObjectiveonthoseDomainNamesinwhichnoreasonablereadercouldEVER
miss.Andithasnothingtodowithaconfusingmarkorconfusingservices.
ItisClear,ObviousandBlatantthatDefendantCrystalCoxsblogsarecriticalofMarc
Randazza,sheisveryvocalaboutherfeelingsandexperienceregardingPlaintiffMarcandher
personalexperiencewithPlaintiffMarcRandazza,thereisnoconfusingsimilarities,thereisa
distinctdifferencebetweentheblogsanddomainnamesusedfortheseblogsthenaSERVICE
connectedtoRandazzaLegalGroup.
DefendantCrystalCoxalsopoststipsshegetsfromIndustryInsiders,Sources,Whistle
BlowersassheisMEDIA.ThereisnoTrademarkorMarkViolationandNOReaderwould
assumethatIamtryingtolurethemintosellasimilar,commercialproductorservice.Itis
Obvious,BlatantandnotConfusinglySimilarinANYway
NodomainnameownedoreverpurchasedbyDefendantCox,isinfringingonanyTrademark
thatPlaintiffhas,inanyway.
Regarding24)and26)PlaintiffdoesnothavecommonlawrightstothenameRandazza.Andif
thiscourtclaimsthatPlaintiffdoes,thensurelythisisonlyintheStateofNevada.
MarcRandazzagoesbytheTradenameMarcoRandazzaashisonlinePersona.NotMarc
Randazza.PlaintiffhasNOTrademarkonthenameRandazzaorMarcRandazza.
Regarding28.)DefendantCrystalCoxhasnodomainenterprise.IamMediaandIam
reportingon,makingfunof,criticizing,makingaparodyofandspeakoutregardingPlaintiffMarc
Randazza,Ihaveeverylawfulandconstitutionalrighttodueso.

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 10 of 27

10

PlaintiffMarcRandazzaadvertisesasaDomainExpert,anddidnotownMarcRandazza.com,
myblogsareapublicservicetoexposePlaintiff,makefunofPlaintiff,ParodyPlaintiffandwarn
thepublicatlarge.

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDefenseRegardingAllegationinnumber29
DefendantCrystalCoxnorDefendantEliotBernsteinhaveeverregisteredadomainnamein
attempttoextortanyone.DefendantCrystalCoxnorDefendantEliotBernsteinhaveneverhada
criminalcomplaintfiledagainstthemforextortion,beenontrialforextortionnorbeenconvicted
ofextortion.IfPlaintifffeelshehasbeenextortedbyDefendantCrystalCoxnorDefendantEliot
Bernstein,thenthiswouldbetterbeinacriminalcomplaintvs.acivilcomplaint.
MarcRandazza.mewasboughtasajoke,andnottoPROFITinanyway.Itwasboughtafter
PlaintiffFiledaDefamingWIPOComplaint.Itwasofferedfor$5Millionjustafteritwas
purchasedbyme,inablogposttitledHereKittyKitty,asaParody,aJoketoallmyReaders.
Thisdomainnamewasneverablogorasite,andtheonlyonewhomademoneyfromitwas
godaddywiththeoriginalpurchasefeeandtheadsthatGodaddyplacedontheparkedpage.

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDefenseRegardingAllegationinnumber30,31
I,DefendantCrystalCoxDENYtheallegationofcommercialuse.I,DefendantCrystalCox
norDefendantEliotBernsteinhavemadecommercialuseofanydomainnamesinthis
complaint.NordidIselldomainnamestoathirdparty.InFactPlaintiffofferedtobuy
MarcRandazza.comfrommeandIflatoutrefusedatanypriceastherecordshows.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhavemadenopayperclickmoneyfromsaiddomainnames,any
adsontheparkedpageswereplacedbyGodaddyandnotbyDefendant.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxDENYtheallegationinnumber31).IhaveNOTusedthesaid
domainnameinbadfaith,theywereusedtoparodyPlaintiff,reportontheFirst
Amendment,MakefunofPlaintiff,CriticizePlaintiff,ReportonPlaintiffandreportonmy
ownlegalcase,ofwhichPlaintiffwasonceinnegotiationsasmyactingattorney.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxDENYtheallegationinnumber31)ashavingintenttoprofit,nor
didIusePlaintiffsnametosellanyProduct.

10

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 11 of 27

11

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDefenseRegardingAllegationinnumber32,33
IDenyallegationsofregisteringadomainnametogetPlaintifftopurchaseReputation
Services,thisisaFALSEAllegation.IneverofferedthedomainnametoPlaintiffEVER.I
refusedtosellthedomainnametoPlaintiff,andneverhelditassomesortofransomin
anyway,period.
Mydomainnames,blogs,wereALWAYStoparodyPlaintiff,reportontheFirst
Amendment,MakefunofPlaintiff,CriticizePlaintiff,ReportonPlaintiffandreportonmy
ownlegalcase.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxDENYtheallegationinthefootnotesofpage9ofthiscomplaint
thatihaveengagedinANYextortionscheme.IhaveNOTEVERengagedinANYextortion
scheme.IhaveneverextractedmoneyfromanyoneIreporton,norcollectedfeesforother
thirdparties.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxobjecttonumber33statetheclearmeaning..thatisspeculative
andnotbasedinANYfact.IneverclaimedthatIwouldbuyanydomainnameorpost
anythingonlineifPlaintiffdidnotpayme,thisisfalseandfraudonthecourts.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxaskedMarcRandazzaforajobatonepointorifheknewanyone
thatneedasearchenginemarketingexpert,hesaidhedidnotmindmeaskingand
demandedthedomainnameIhadboughtwhenhewastobemyattorneyformyPRonmy
NinthCircuitappeal,IsaidIdidnotwanttosellthedomainnameandhelauncheda
massive,vindictive,retaliationcampaignagainstme.Iboughtdomainnamesandstarted
blogstoreportonthisstory,toreportonhim,towarnotherswhathehaddonetome,to
reviewhisbusiness,togripeabouthim,toparodyhim,tocriticizehimandinNOwayto
Extorthiminanyway.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhaveeveryrighttobuyandtoownthedomainname
FuckMarcRandazza.comandMarcRandazzaSucks.comtheywerenotpurchasedto
extortnortofloodtheinternetwithuntruthfulinformation.TheywereAGAINpurchasedtoto
reportonthisstory,toreportonPlaintiff,towarnotherswhathehaddonetome,toreview
hisbusiness,togripeaboutPlaintiff,toparodyhim,tocriticizehimandinNOwaytoExtort
himinanyway.

11

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 12 of 27

12

I,DefendantCrystalCoxneverboughtadomainnametointimidateMarcRandazza,thatis
absurd,Plaintiffwouldneverbeintimidatedbyapurchasingofadomainname.I,
DefendantCrystalCoxneverboughtadomainnametointerferewithawitnessortostop
PlaintifffromtestifyinginObsidianV.Coxsassetprobe.Astherecordshows,Ievenfiled
questionsIhopedtoaskPlaintiffMarcRandazzaandtothisdayhavenoideahowhegot
outofthatdepositionafterhewassubpoenaedtoattend.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhaveneverpurchasedadomainnametoHARASSPlaintiff.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxobjecttoPlaintiffsattempttosinglemeoutastheonlyblogger
theonlymediatoNOTbeabletousehislastnameinblogs,especiallywhenPlaintiffhas
blogsinmynameandreportson,blogsonmeandusesmypersonalnametodoso.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhaveNOTharassedPlaintiffsFamilyinanyway.Ihavesimply
exercisedmyFirstAmendmentRightsandhavespokeoutaboutmygrievanceswith
Plaintiffonkeywordrichblogsanddomainnames.Ihaveeverylawfulandconstitutional
righttodoso.

ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDefenseRegardingAllegationinnumber41,42
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhavenotuseddomainnamestoharassandintimidatePlaintiff
nortoharmhisfamilyorhisbusiness,asstatedabove,domainnamesandblogswereto
gripe,parody,reporton,makefunofandreviewPlaintiff.Ihaveeveryconstitutionalrightto
doso.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhaveneverhadablogregardingaJanelleRandazzaanddonot
evenknowwhothatis.Ihaveneverhadablogregardingathreeyearoldchild,thatisa
FALSEallegationaswell.
PlaintiffMarcRandazzapostedpicturesofhischildonhisblogandgavepicturesto
Forbes,IpostedNOpicturesnordidIhaveablogregardingPlaintiffschild.
AnypicturesofMarcRandazzaswifewerefromMarcRandazzasblog.IfJennifer
RandazzawasaprivatecitizenthenMarcRandazzashouldnothavehadablogpostwith
herpictureandamixeddrink,talkingaboutadrunkentrystandwherebabiescomefrom.
MyblogwasmakingfunofMarcRandazzaspostonhisownwife,itwashispicture,NOT
mine.I,DefendantCrystalCoxhaveeveryrightundertheFirstAmendmenttoCallMarc
RandazzaswifeaSLUT.
12

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 13 of 27

13

I,DefendantCrystalCoxnevergotintothesearchenginesnorhadablogregardingthe
toddlerdiscussedinnumber42.
PerFootnoteonPage12,I,DefendantCrystalCoxdofullybelievethatPlaintiffMarcJ.
RandazzaisinvolvedinorganizedcrimeandhasinsidersatGoogleandGodaddywhodo
whathewantsandviolatestherightsofhismarks
RegardingAllegationsinNumber46.)
PlaintiffMarcRandazzaslossofcontroloverhisreputationandgoodwillhashadNOTHINGto
dowithDefendantCrystalCoxnorDefendantEliotBernstein.Plaintiffhasnotsufferedany

damagesregardingDefendantCrystalCoxnorDefendantEliotBernstein.
PlaintiffhasNOTrademarkontheNameRandazza
ThereisnoonMarcRandazzasBlog.AndtherewasnoproofgiventoWIPOofMarc
RandazzasgivennameasIbelievehisbirthnameisMarcoRandazzaandnotMarc
Randazza.AlsonotethatthisMarcRandazzaisnottheonlyMarcRandazzaintheworldand
shouldnothavearighttostealthisintellectualpropertyastheonlyrightfulownerintheworld.
OnbeliefandknowledgeofDefendantCrystalCox,PlaintiffMarcRandazzahasCriminally

andCivillyConspiredwithINTA,PeterL.Michaelson,WIPOandJohnandJaneDoes
RegardingthenameMarcRandazzaandFraudulentTrademarkClaims.
RegardingTrademarkissues,Defendant,AttorneyMarcRandazzausesMarcoRandazzaas
hisTwitterandYouTubeUserName,aswellashisusernameonhisownblog.AsSeenIn
ExhibitQ.Defendant,AttorneyMarcRandazzahadnopostedathisblogregardingthe
nameMarcRandazzaasbeigntrademarkedandPlainiffAttorneyMarcRandazzahadno
TrademarkwhenpurchasedDefendantCrystalCoxpurchasedMarcRandazza.comtouseas
PRforDefendantCrystalCoxshighlypublicFirstAmendmentCase.
MarcRandazzahasnocommonlawtrademarkonhiswebsite,hehadnoTrademarkwhenI
purchasedthedomainnamesyetseemstohaveconvincedWIPOthatheistherightfulowner
andhasstolenseveraldomainnamesfrommyselfandDefendantEliotBernsteinofiViewit
Technologies.
MarcRandazzahadnolawfulTrademarkonthenameMarcRandazzaatthetimeBlogger
CrystalCoxpurchasedDomainNames,norattheTimeiViewitTechnologyEliotBernstein
receivedDomainNamesinReceivership.

13

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 14 of 27

14

EvenifPlaintiffCouldproveaTrademark,DefendantsFirstAmendmentRightsTRUMP
TrademarkRightsinthiscase.

RegardingPlaintiffsDiscussionoftheLanhamAct,Thoughitdoesnotseemtobea
causeofaction,PlaintifflistsLanhaminthiscomplaintatvariouspoints.
TheSupremeCourthasrecognizedthethreattofreedomofspeech.InCohenv.California,
403U.S.15,25,91S.Ct.1780,1788,29L.Ed.2d284(1971),itwasdecidedthattheright
tospeakfreelythatisguaranteedbytheFirstAmendmenttotheConstitutionoftheUnited
Statesincludestherighttocriticizeothers,voicehighlycontroversialopinions,and
commentonpublicinterestmatters.
TheFirstAmendmentalsoprotectsfreespeechofextremestatementsandintentional
exaggerationwhenitisclearthestatementsareinsincereanddonetofrustratethetarget,
andisnotdefamationbutopinion,satire,orparody.
InHustlerMagazinev.FalwellParodyisNOTDefamation.Therearemanyothercasesin
whichdiscussthatParodyandSatireisnotaTrademarkorDefamationIssue.Plaintiff/
CounterDefendantMarcRandazzaDEFENDSSatireandParodyBlogs,Sites,Domain
Names,Content,Radio,TelevisionandMore,Constantly,
YEThehascommittedFraudonthecourtsinSEIZINGMarcRandazaSucks.com,
FuckMarcRandazza.com,MarcRandazzaParody.com,RandazzaLegalGroupSucks.com
andotherDomainNamesanddotblogspotswereclearlytoexpressfreespeech,parody,
critisize,speakfreely,voicehighlycontroversialopinions,andcommentonpublicinterest
matters.AswasMarcRandazza.com,andalltheotherblogs,.blogspotandDomain
Names,inwhichthiscourtandWIPOillegally,unconstitutionallySEIZEDinfavorofPlaintiff
MarcRandazza.WITHOUTfirstadjudicatingtheFirstAmendmentIssues.
ThefirststepwithfreespeechandtheFirstAmendmentandtrademarklawiswhetherthe
speechinquestioniscommercialornoncommercial.Commercialspeechisboundbythe
lawsoftheLanhamActandissubjecttolessandsometimesnoFirstAmendment
protection.

14

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 15 of 27

15

NoncommercialspeechisnotboundbytheLanhamActortrademarklaw,andis
guaranteedcompleteandfullFirstAmendmentprotection.Infact,trademarklaw
specificallyexemptsnoncommercialspeechsothatthelawwillnotinfringeontheFirst
Amendment.OnecasethatsupportsthisparagraphisTaubmanCo.v.Webfeats,319
F.3d770,77475(6thCir.2003).AnothersupportingprecedentisNissanMotorCo.v.
NissanComputerCorp.,378F.3d1002,101518(9thCir.2004).
ProSeDefendantCrystalL.CoxandDefendantEliotBernsteinhavemadenomoneyfrom
theSeizedDomainnames.ProSeDefendantCrystalL.Cox,isanInvestigativeBlogger,a
MediaDefendantandwasgivingPlaintiffMarcRandazzaabadreviewasshewasa
formerclientofPlaintiffMarcRandazza.
ProSeDefendantCrystalL.Coxwasreportingon/blowingthewhistleon/investigative
bloggingonorganizedcrime,pornindustryhookersandhumantrafficking,video
technologyinfringement(iViewit),gangstalkings,threatsofviolence,intellectualproperty
theft,civilrightsviolations,civilandcriminalconspiracyandmoreallegedlyinvolving
PlaintiffMarcRandazzaandhisClients.
Therearemanycasessupportingthatnegativeconsumercommentaryiscorespeech
protectedbytheFirstAmendment.Anothercasesupportingthisis,BoseCorp.v.Consumers
Union,466U.S.485(1984)Manyothercasestreatcriticismsofacompany,theirbusiness
practices,productsandservices,asspeechprotectedbytheFirstAmendment.Criticismwould
bepointlessifthepersoncannotnamethecompanytheyarebashingbyusingitstrademarks.
TheFourthCircuitexplainedthatjustbecausespeechiscriticalofacorporationorcompanyand
itsbusinesspractices,itisnotasufficientreasontopreventorenjointhespeech.Ifatrademark
ownercouldenjointheuseofhismarkinanoncommercialcontextfoundtobenegativeor
offensive,thanacorporationcouldshielditselffromcriticismbyforbiddingtheuseofitsnamein
commentariescriticalofitsconduct.CPCIntl.,Inc.v.SkippyInc.,214F.3d456,462(4thCir.
2000)(quotingL.L.Beanv.DrakePublishers,811F.2d26,33(1stCir.1987)).
ProSeDefendantCrystalL.CoxaseverylawfulandconstitutionalrighttocriticizePlaintiffMarc
RandazzaandhisLawFirmRandazzaLegalGroup.Justbecausespeechiscriticalofa
corporationorcompanyanditsbusinesspractices,itisnotasufficientreasontopreventor
enjointhespeechandwipeoutmassiveblogs,links,domainnamesandcontentofInvestigative
BloggerProSeDefendantCrystalL.Cox

15

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 16 of 27

16

CongresshasdecidedthattheLanhamActONLYappliestocommercialspeech.Under
43(15U.S.C.1125)explicitlydefinesthatnoncommercialuseisnotactionable.The
followingshallnotbeactionableunderthissection:...
(B)Noncommercialuseofthemark.
ProSeDefendantCrystalL.CoxandDefendantEliotBernstein,hadnotcommercialmotivesor
"speech"solicitingmoneyinregardtoblogs,domains,onlinemedia,investigativenewsblogsin
whichexposed,createdparodyandsatire,criticized,reviewed,reportonPlaintiff/Counter
DefendantMarcRandazzaandhisClients,CoConspirators,CounterDefendants.
PlaintiffMarcRandazzahaveusedtheLanhamActtoSuppressFreeSpeech,Intimidatea
Reporter/Whistleblower,andtoStealMassiveContent/IntellectualPropertyANDtoEliminate
SearchEngineCompetitionforFREE.
15U.S.C.1125(a)(1).TheLanhamActdefinesuseincommerceasmeaningbonafideuse
ofamarkintheordinarycourseoftrade,suchasusingthemarkinconjunctionwithservicesor
goodsincommerce.15U.S.C.1127.Withoutuseincommerceinconnectionwithgoods
andservices,thereisnotrademarkinfringement.IntlBancorp,LLCv.SocietedesBainsde
MeretduInternationalBancorp,LLC,329F.3d359,363(4thCir.2003)PeopleforEthical
TreatmentofAnimals(PETA)v.Doughney,263F.3d359,365(4thCir.2001)seealsoS.Rep.
No.100515,at44(1988),reprintedin1988U.S.C.C.A.N.5577,5607(Amendmentofthe
definitionofuseincommerce[in45oftheLanhamAct)isoneofthemostfarreaching
changesthelegislationcontains....
Thecommitteeintendsthatthereviseddefinitionofuseincommercebeinterpretedtomean
commercialusewhichistypicalinaparticularindustry.).Basically,theLanhamactexcludesall
noncommercialspeech.Nissan,378F.3dat101617seealsoTMI,Inc.v.Maxwell,368F.3d
433,43638(5thCir.2004),andevenexcludescommercialspeechthatdoesnotusemarksin
connectionwithgoodsorservices.PETA,263F.3d359,365(4thCir.2001).

FirstAmendmentRightsAndConstitutionalLawtrumpTrademarklaw.
ThefirststepwithfreespeechandtheFirstAmendmentandtrademarklawiswhetherthe
speechinquestioniscommercialornoncommercial.Commercialspeechisboundbythelaws
oftheLanhamActandissubjecttolessandsometimesnoFirstAmendmentprotection.
NoncommercialspeechisnotboundbytheLanhamActortrademarklaw,andisguaranteed
completeandfullFirstAmendmentprotection.Infact,trademarklawspecificallyexempts
noncommercialspeechsothatthelawwillnotinfringeontheFirstAmendment.Onecasethat
supportsthisparagraphisTaubmanCo.v.Webfeats,319F.3d770,77475(6thCir.2003).
AnothersupportingprecedentisNissanMotorCo.v.NissanComputerCorp.,378F.3d1002,
101518(9thCir.2004).

16

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 17 of 27

17

Despitemanycorporationsusingintimidationtotrytosilencepeoplefromspeakingtheirminds
andusinglawsuits,andthreatsoflawsuits,theConstitutioncontinuouslyprotectsfreespeech.
ItexcludescommercialspeechpreciselyforthepurposeofavoidinginfringementofFirst
Amendmentrights.Taubman,319F.3dat77475(6thCir.2003)Nissan,378F.3dat101617.
Thus,whenanactionisbroughtagainstanoncommercialuseofatrademarkforeitherpolitical
orconsumercommentary,suchastheSLAPPcaseswithWalmart,Starbucks,andothers,the
courtsdonotusuallyhesitatetograntthedefendantfullFirstAmendmentprotectionbyholding
thattrademarklawdoesnotapplyandthatFirstAmendmentprotectssuchspeech.SeeCPC
Intl,214F.3dat46164(4thCir.2000)Nissan,378F.3dat101718(9thCir.2004)L.L.Bean,
811F.2dat33.
NoncommercialSpeechIsNOTSubjecttoTrademarkLawANDIsFullyProtectedbytheFirst
Amendment.Trademarklawexplicitlyexemptsnoncommercialspeechsuchasthealleged
emailsandwebsite(s)preciselysothatthelawwillnotrunafouloftheFirstAmendment.
Taubman,319F.3dat774(6thCir.2003)Nissan,378F.3dat101617(9thCir.2004).
NumerouscasesshowthatconsumercommentaryiscorespeechprotectedbytheFirst
Amendment.See,e.g.,BoseCorp.v.ConsumersUnion,466U.S.485(1984)(NewYorkTimes
standardappliedinlibelactionbroughtbyamanufacturerclaimingthatconsumergrouphad
maligneditsproduct).Manyothercasessimilarlytreatcriticismsofacompanysproductsor
businesspracticesasspeechprotectedbytheFirstAmendment.Thecriticismswouldbe
pointlessiftheydidnotidentifythecompanytheywerecriticizingandbyusingitstrademarks.
TheFourthCircuitexplained:Thisisanadmittedlypartisanaccountandonethatvexes[the
plaintiff].Yetjustbecausespeechiscriticalofacorporationanditsbusinesspracticesisnota
sufficientreasontoenjointhespeech.AstheFirstCircuitstated,ifatrademarkownercould
enjointheuseofhismarkinanoncommercialcontextfoundtobenegativeoroffensive,thena
corporationcouldshielditselffromcriticismbyforbiddingtheuseofitsnameincommentaries
criticalofitsconduct.CPCIntl.,Inc.v.SkippyInc.,214F.3d456,462(4thCir.2000)(quoting
L.L.Beanv.DrakePublishers,811F.2d26,33(1stCir.1987)).Congresshasthereforelimited
theapplicationoftheLanhamActtocommercialspeech.First,43(c)expresslyexcludesnon
commercialuseofmarksfromtheentiresectionsreach:Thefollowingshallnotbeactionable
underthissection:...(B)Noncommercialuseofthemark.15U.S.C.1125(c)(4)(emphasis
added).Section(c)(4)wasaddedtotheActwhenitwasamendedin1989.TheHouseJudiciary
Committeemadeexplicitthatthepurposewastoavoidanyimpactonnoncommercialspeech:
TheproposedchangeinSection43(a)shouldnotbereadinanywaytolimitpoliticalspeech,
consumeroreditorialcomment,parodies,satires,orotherconstitutionallyprotectedmaterial.

17

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 18 of 27

18

NoncommercialSpeechIsNOTSubjecttoTrademarkLaw.AdsplacedonDomainNamesand
Bloginthiscase,asPlaintiffMarcRandazzaknowsfullwell,beinganExpertintheIndustry,are
placedbyGoogleandbyGoDaddyandthatProSeDefendantCrystalL.CoxandDefendant
EliotBernsteinhavenocontroloversuchads,andarenotinvolvedinacommercialendeavorin
REPORTINGonPlaintiffMarcRandazzaandhisClients,andinreportingonthebiggest
TechnologyTheftintheWORLD,iViewitTechnology,anditsFounder,InventorEliotBernstein.

PlaintiffMarcRandazzahasnoTrademarkonthenameMarcRandazza,yetthiscourt
simplyfavoredPlaintiffMarcRandazzaandgavehimwhathewanted,andhasthereby
PERMANENTLYalteredthesearchengines,removedcontentonmassiveblogs,changed
thousandsoflinks,anddeletedblog/intellectualpropertyofProSeDefendantCrystalL.
CoxandDefendantEliotBernstein.
Plaintiff/CounterDefendantMarcRandazzahasnoTrademarkonthenameMarc
Randazza,yetthiscourtsimplyfavoredPlaintiffMarcRandazzaandgavehimwhathe
wanted,andhastherebyPERMANENTLYalteredthesearchengines,removedcontenton
massiveblogs,changedthousandsoflinks,anddeletedblog/intellectualpropertyofPro
SeDefendantCrystalL.CoxandDefendantEliotBernstein.

RegardingCauseofAction(1)ViolationofIndividualCyberpiracy
Protectionsunder15U.S.C.8131
ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDENIESaViolationofIndividualCyberpiracyProtectionsunder15

U.S.C.8131DefendantReAllegesallpreviousParagraphsinFull.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxDenyregisteringinfringingdomainnames.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxDenyregisteringanydomainnamesassociatewithPlaintiffwitha
specificintenttoprofitinanyway,norinbadfaith.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxDenyaccusationsofattemptingtomonetizeonPlaintiffsnameinany
way.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxDidnotregisteranydomainnameregardingPlaintiffinattempttosolicit
businessofanykindfromPlaintiff.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxstatethatPlaintiffisnotentitledtoanyreliefregardingViolationof

IndividualCyberpiracyProtectionsunder15U.S.C.8131becausetherewasnodamagedone
toplaintiffandtherewasnoviolationofthislaw
18

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 19 of 27

19

I,DefendantCrystalCoxdidnotregisteranydomainnameregardingPlaintiffwiththeintentto
profitandrejectedofferstoselldomainnames.TheHereKittyKitty,postwasaJOKE,noone
wouldpay5MillionforaDomainNamesuchasthat,boughtjustdaysbeforeandwithnovalue
created.IhaveNEVERpurchasedadomainnameassociatedwithPlaintiffsnamewithintentto
sellandprofit,provenbymyrejectionofPlaintiffsoffertobuydomainname.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxboughtsaiddomainnametoreviewPlaintiffasmyattorney,to

reportingonPlaintiff,toblogonPlaintiff,pokefunatPlaintiff,criticizePlaintiff,reportonfirst
amendmentcasesandmakingparodyblogsaboutPlaintiff
I,DefendantCrystalCoxboughtsaiddomainnameingoodfaithandundermyconstitutional
rights.AndhaveNOTviolatedIndividualCyberpiracyProtectionsunder15U.S.C.8131
PlaintiffMarcRandazzahasnoTrademarkontheNameRandazzaorMarcRandazza.

RegardingCauseofAction(2)and(3)
ViolationofIndividualCyberpiracyProtection15U.S.C.8131
ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDENIESaViolationofIndividualCyberpiracyProtection15
U.S.C.8131
DefendantCrystalCoxdidnotbuysaiddomainnameswithintenttoprofit.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxdenyallegationsofengaginginpervasivelinkspammingand
cybersquattingagainstPlaintiff.I,DefendantCrystalCoxwassimplyreportingon,blogging
about,makingfunof,criticizing,reviewingandmakingparodyofPlaintiff.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxdidnotoffertoselldomainnamestoPlaintiff,infactIrejected
Plaintiffsoffertobuydomainnamesastherecordshows.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxdidnotoffertorepairanydamagethatIhadallegedlydoneto
Plaintiff.WhenIaskedPlaintiffforajob,I,DefendantCrystalCoxhadnotwrittenawordon
myblogsregardingPlaintiff.WhenPlaintiffattackedmeonlineline,accusedmeofcriminal
activity(Extortion),defamedandattackedme,I,DefendantCrystalCoxusedmydomain
namestoexposePlaintiff,makefunofPlaintiff,andwarnothersofPlaintiffwhohadbeen
myattorneyinnegotiationsregardingObsidianV.Cox.

19

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 20 of 27

20

I,DefendantCrystalCoxdidnotinstigateaschemetosmearPlaintiff.I,DefendantCrystal
CoxexercisedmyfirstamendmentrighttospeakoutagainstPlaintiff,CriticizePlaintiff,
ParodyPlaintiffandwarnothersofhisbehaviorfrommypersonalexperience,andtopost
tipsIreceivedfromwhistleblowersregardingPlaintiff.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxneverengagedinanextortionscheme,noranyotheravenueof
profitregardingPlaintiffsallegedmark.
I,DefendantCrystalCoxhavenotdamagedPlaintiffsnorviolatedIndividualCyberpiracy
Protection15U.S.C.8131,andPlaintiffsarenotentitledtoreliefofanykind.

RegardingCauseofAction(4)(5)
Cybersquattingunder15U.S.C.1125(d)
ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDENIESaViolationof"Cybersquattingunder15U.S.C.
1125(d)"DefendantReAllegesallpreviousParagraphsinFull.
DomainNamesandblogswerenotusedforcommercialpurposes,andwereNOTpurchasedwith
ANYintenttoProfitwhatsoever.DefendanthasnotengagedinExtortionwithPlaintiffnoranyoneElse.
DefendanthasnotbeenundercriminalinvestigationforExtortionandhasnotviolatedCybersquatting
under15U.S.C.1125(d).
ThereisnofalsedesignationofOrigin,orconfusionofanykindtoanyreasonablereaderoftheseblogs
orsites,oruseofsaiddomainnames.TheOriginisclearthattheblogauthoriscriticizing,mocking,
makingaparodyof,reportingon,andgivingtheiropinionofPlaintiffMarcRandazzaandhiscases,as
heisaPublicFigure.
Thereisnoconfusionofsimilargoodsorservicesoffered,nocommercialadvertisingorpromotions,
andnomisrepresentationinanywaythatwouldconfuseareaderthatmyblogswereconnectedto
RandazzaLegalGroup,orasimilarproductorservice.
(d)Plaintiffhasnomarkownership,hasnoTrademarkonthenameRandazzaorMarcRandazza.
DefendantCrystalCoxhadnobadfaith,andnointenttoprofitfromtheallegedmark.

20

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 21 of 27

21

PlaintiffhasNoTrademarkandDefendanthasNottraffickedininfringingdomainnamesregarding
PlaintiffsTrademark.DefendantCrystalCoxhasnotregistereddomainnamestoprevent
Plaintifffrombuyingsaiddomainnames.Plaintiffhadoveradecadetobuy
MarcRandazza.comandasfarastheotherdomainnamesgo,Plaintiffwouldneverhave
boughtthosedomainnamestodobusinessasAttorneyMarcJ.RandazzaofRandazza
LegalGroup.
ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxhasnotregistereddomainnamesnorblogsnamesinbad
faithtoprofitfromPlaintiffsallegedmark.
IntheMotionforSummaryJudgementinthiscase,PlaintiffstatesthathedoesnothaveaTrademarkon
thenameRandazzaorMarcRandazzaandthereforethisLegalActionisMootandshouldbe
dismissed.PlaintiffadmitstohavingnoTrademarkasseenintheMotionforSummaryJudgementfiled
againstDefendantCrystalCox.AllthroughthisComplaintPlaintiffaccusesDefendantofinfringingon
hisMark,yetadmitsinaMotionforSummaryJudgementthathehasnoTrademark,noMark

RegardingCauseofAction(6)RightofPublicityNRS597.810
ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDENIESaViolationof"RightofPublicity"NRS597.810.
DefendantReAllegesallpreviousParagraphsinFull.
RightofPublicityunderNevadaRevisedStatute597.810doesnotapplytoallInternet
activityinallstates,thiswouldonlyapplytothoseintheStateofNevadaviewingmyblogson
NevadaWebServers.
DefendantCrystalCoxhadnounauthorizedcommercialuseofsaidblogs.

PlaintiffhasnolawfulrighttoInjunctiveRelief.DefendantCrystalCoxhasFirstAmendmentrightsto
ownandoperatesaidblogsanddomainnames.InjunctiveReliefisunconstitutional.TheConstitutionof
theUnitedStatesTrumpsNevadaRevisedStatute597.810.

21

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 22 of 27

22

RegardingCauseofAction(7)CommonLawRightofPublicity
ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDENIESaViolationof"CommonLawRightofPublicity.
DefendantReAllegesallpreviousParagraphsinFull.
I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxdidnotregistereddomainnamesorblogstocompete
withPlaintifftomycommercialadvantage.
I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxhavehadnoextortionschemeinanyway.Plaintiffhasno
protectedTrademarkonthenameRandazzaorMarcRandazza.
I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxhaveneverhadanunlawfulenterpriseofANYkind.
I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxhaveneverhadafinancialgainregardingPlaintiffsname.

RegardingCauseofActionCommonLawRight
ofIntrusionUponSeclusion
(PleaseNoteComplaintSaysCauseofActionSixth,HoweverthereisalreadyaCauseof
Action6andXmeans10,yetthisisnumber8.
ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDENIESaViolationof"CommonLawRightofIntrusionUpon
Seclusion".DefendantReAllegesallpreviousParagraphsinFull.
I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxhaveneverpostedapictureofPlaintiffsdaughteronany
blog,norhaveI,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxwrittenawordregardingPlaintiffsdaughter
orhadablogregardingPlaintiffsDaughter.Plaintiff,himselfgaveForbesReporter
KashmirHillpicturesofhisdaughterandshepostedthosephotosonForbes,Plaintiff
postedphotosonhisblogofthischild.I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxdidnowusethe
childsnamenorphotoinanyblog.
PlaintiffJenniferRandazzahasphotosonlineofherfashion,andPlaintiffMarcRandazzahasphotosof
heronhisownblog.IhavenamecalledandreportedonPlaintiffJenniferRandazzaandhaveevery
constitutionalrighttodoso,andhaveneverdonesoforcommercialreasons.

22

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 23 of 27

23

I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxhavecalledPlaintiffJenniferRandazzaaSlut,andthiswasafter
PlaintiffMarcRandazzawentonCNNandotherpublicationstodefendRushLimbaughforcalling
SandraFlukeaslut,whichwas,atthetimeahighlypoliticaltopicinmainstreammedia.Ialsohadjust
readapostonPlaintiffMarcRandazzasblogregardingadrunkentrystandknockingJenniferup,sohe
mayaswellmarryher.Yes,IcalledPlaintiffJenniferRandazzaaSlut.
I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxhaveneverusedPlaintiffsdaughtersnameinanycrusade
toextortPlaintifforanyoneelse.

RegardingCauseofAction(9)CivilConspiracy.
ComplaintCallItXI.SeventhCauseofAction
ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxDENIESaViolationof"CivilConspiracy".DefendantReAllegesall
previousParagraphsinFull.
I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxhaveneverengagedinanykindofCriminalConspiracywith
EliotBernsteinoranyoneelseever.

I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxrespectfullystatethatallofthebelowlisted
documentshavepertinentandimportantinformationregardingthiscaseandthe
reasonsPlaintifffiledthiscase,andIrequestthatALLpriordocumentsbe
consideredasincludedinthisCourtOrderedAmendedComplaintAnswer
I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxrespectfullyReSubmit/ReAllegeinFULLallfollowing
paragraphs,statements,documentsofthiscasethusfarwiththisComplaintAnswerandwithitI
ReallegeallI,ProSeDefendantCrystalCox/ProSeCounterPlaintiffstatedinALLprior
motionsinthislawsuit,includedandnotlimitedtomyOriginalComplaintAnswer,MyMotionin
OppositionofExParteMotion,MyMotionforRemoval/Reclusal/DisqualificationofJudge
GloriaNavarro,MyMotionRequestingaProtectiveOrder,MyMotiontoNotifyAuditors,My
REPLYtoResponseto2MOTIONforTemporaryRestrainingOrder,MyMOTIONtoRequest
ThisCourtInvestigatePlaintiffMarcRandazza,
AlsomyOriginalCounterClaim,myAmendedCounterClaim,myRESPONSEto2MOTION
forTemporaryRestrainingOrder,myMOTIONMotionRequestingPlaintiffInformInsurance
ProvidersofLiability,SeekOutsideCounsel,andDisclosingMalpracticeIssues,regarding
PlaintiffRandazzasExClientDefendantCrystalCox,andcaserelatedissues,myREPLYto
Responseto47MOTIONforProtectiveOrderfiledbyCounterClaimantCrystalLCox,

23

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 24 of 27

24

AlsoCounterDefendantCrystalLCox,ADDENDUMtoREPLYtoResponseto47MOTIONfor
ProtectiveOrder,myCourtNoticeofEmergencyNoticetoCourtofViolentActionsofCounter
DefendantAriBassaKaMIchaelWhiteacreandSeanTompkins.ProtectiveOrderedRequested,
myMOTION/APPLICATIONforLeavetoProceedinformapauperis,REPLYtoResponseto60
FirstMOTIONRequestingCourtNotifyInvestigators/AuthoritiesRegardingSuspectedCriminal
Actions/ActivitiesofPlaintiffMarcRandazzaandCounterDefendants/CoConspirators,my
MotionforSummaryJudgementagainstPlaintiff,MemorandumtomySummaryJudgement
againstPlaintiff,MotiontoFileInFormaPaupus,ReplytoOppositionofFormaPaupus,Motion
toSanctionMarcJ.RandazzaandRonaldD.Green,ReplytoResponsetoMotiontoSanction,
CounterComplaint,Amended,andallmotions,addendumsandexhibitspreviouslyfiledinthis
case,astheyhavelotsoffactual,pertinent,relevantinformationinmydefenseandinthiscase
asawhole.

NoteToCourt:ThisCourthasDENIEDrequeststosignaconflictofInterestDisclosure,
thoughrequestedseveraltimesbyProSeDefendant/ProSeCounterPlaintiffCrystalL.Cox.
AnyactionforwardbyJudgeGloriaM.NavarroorJudgePeggyA.Leen,whorefusesto
admit/denyconflictsandrulesforwardwillbechargedwithObstructionofJusticethrough
conflictsofinterest,violationsofattorneyandjudicialcannonsinordertoDenyDueProcessvia
aidingandabettingtheallegedcivilandcriminalconspiracythroughFraudontheCourt.
I,ProSeDefendant/ProSeCounterPlaintiffCrystalCoxintendtofilecriminalcomplaints
againstanyofficerofthecourt,includingopposingcounsel,whoviolatesanylaworethical
statuesinordertoperpetratethefraudthroughobstructionviaconflicts,orhasviolatedanylaw
alreadyinpreviousrulingsaffectingme,ProSeDefendant,ProSeCounterDefendantCrystal
Cox.
Thereforeeveryrulingofthiscourtonamotionwithoutconflictdisclosurewillbechargedfor
eachandeveryactainacriminalcomplaint,forthcoming.
JudgeGloriaNavarroisallegedbyProSeDefendant/ProSeCounterPlaintiffCrystalCoxtobe
actingincriminalandcivilconspiracywithPlaintiff/CounterDefendantMarcJ.Randazzaand
ALLConnectedCoConspiratorsandCounterDefendantsofDistrictofNevadaCase
2:12cv02040GMNPALandthereforethiscourthasadutytonotifyallapplicableauthorities,
bondcarriers,insurancecarriers,ANDStateandFederalAuditorsoftheliabilityofthisallegation
inaFederalCourtProceeding.
JudgeGloriaNavarrorefusestodisqualifyherselfandhasconflictwiththePlaintiff.JudgeGloria
NavarroconsistentlygivesPlaintiffunconstitutionalPreliminaryInjunctions.TheRighthaven
case,LibertyMediaV.Magnus,andViaviewarerecentcaseswhereJudgeGloriaNavarrohas
favoredPlaintiff.
24

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 25 of 27

25

PlaintiffisaNevadaAttorneyandisbelievedtohavemafiaconnections.JudgeGloriaNavarro
hasviolatedmyrightsandhasnottreatedmefairlyorequalunderthelawortheConstitutionof
theUnitedStates.
IonceagainrequestthatJudgeGloriaNavarroandallmakingdecisioninthiscasesigna
ConflictofInterestDisclosureadmittingordenyingconflict.Itisthelawanditismylegaland
constitutionalright.Ihavealawfulrighttoanimpartialjudge.
DefendantCrystalCoxhasarighttobeheardandarighttodueprocessoflaw.Thiscourt
continuestodenymylawfulandconstitutionalrights.IhavetherightofaDefense,andofa
counterclaimandmyintellectualproperty,blogs,domainnamesandvoicehaveBeentakenby
thiscourt,repeatedly.Thiscourthasallowedmylifetoputindangerandhastakenallmyrights.

I,ProSeDefendantCrystalCoxspecificallyInvokethefollowinglaws,statutes,nd
constitutionalamendmentsinmyDefenseinthiscase.
LawsSpecificallyInvokedbyDefendantCrystalCoxinHerDefense.
DefendantCrystalCoxSpecificallyInvokesAntiSlappLaws,NevadaSLAPPStatutes.
ThisLawsuitwasfiledfrivolouslyandhascosttaxpayeranddefendants.
DefendantCrystalCoxSpecificallyInvokestheFirstAmendmentoftheUnitedStates
Constitution.canbeseized,blogsdeleted,linksbroken,andintellectualpropertytaken,
irreparabledamagecaused.TheFirstAmendmentRightsatissueinthiscasemustbe
Adjudicatedbeforedomainnames.
DefendantCrystalCoxSpecificallyInvokestheFourteenthAmendmentoftheUnitedStates
Constitution.
DefendantCrystalCoxSpecificallyInvokesAntiTrustLaws,theShermanAct,FairCompetition
Laws,asPlaintiffisinterferingwithfaircompetitionwithsearchengineresults.
DefendantCrystalCoxSpecificallyInvokesTheFairCompetitionAct(FCA),TheSherman
AntitrustAct(1890),AntitrustPolicyandCompetition.
DefendantCrystalCoxSpecificallyInvokesallFreedomofSpeechLaws.Freedomofspeechis
thepoliticalrighttocommunicateone'sopinionsandideas.

25

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 26 of 27

26

TherighttofreedomofexpressionisrecognizedasahumanrightunderArticle19ofthe
UniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsandrecognizedininternationalhumanrightslawinthe
InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR).Article19oftheICCPRstatesthat
"[e]veryoneshallhavetherighttoholdopinionswithoutinterference"and"everyoneshallhave
therighttofreedomofexpressionthisrightshallincludefreedomtoseek,receiveandimpart
informationandideasofallkinds,regardlessoffrontiers,eitherorally,inwritingorinprint,inthe
formofart,orthroughanyothermediaofhischoice".
DefendantCrystalCoxSpecificallyInvokesNevadaRetractionLawsinherDefense.AsPlaintiff
didnotaskforaretractionbeforefilingafrivolousandcostlylawsuit.
DefendantCrystalCoxSpecificallyInvokesALLMalpracticeLawsasPlaintiffwasDefendants
Attorneyinrelatedmatters.

I,DefendantCrystalCoxDeclarethefollowingCasesConnectedtoThisCase
(thisisimportantforanyfutureRICOLegalActionandthePublicatLarge)
Case2:12cv02040GMNPADistrictofNevadaisconnectedtoCaseCV1157HZU.S.

DistrictCourtDistrictofOregon,Case2:12mc00017JPHEasternDistrictofWashington
CircuitCourtofOregonMultnomahCountyCaseNo.121215329andNinthCircuitAppeal
Case:1235319.Allcasedockets,documents,exhibitsareherebyincludedinthiscaseas
evidenceofcriminalandcivilconspiracy.AlsothiscaseisrelatedtoRakofskyV.The
InternetaNewYorkCasewithsamepeopleinvolved.

RespectfullySubmitted
InvestigativeBloggerCrystalL.Cox
ProSeDefendantCrystalCox
Case2:12cv02040GMNPAL

26

Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 90

Filed 02/23/13 Page 27 of 27

27

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
IherebycertifythatIservedtheforegoingon:OnFebruary23,2013
VIAElectronicServicetotheDistrictofNevadaCourt
RespectfullySubmitted
InvestigativeBloggerCrystalL.Cox
ProSeDefendantCrystalCox
Case2:12cv02040GMNPAL

27