Ever Wonder how to Use a TRO to Steal Online Content, Intellectual Property, Someone's Work Product and Proprietary Methods? And completely IGNORE the First Amendment? Wonder No More. Let Attorney Marc Randazza Show you the Way.

How to Side Step that Pesky First Amendment by using an Unconstitutional TRO, inspired by my former Unconstitutional, First Amendment Attorney Marc J. Randazza, Attorney Ronald Green and the Randazza Legal Group Law Firm.

Detailed Step By Step How To Coming Soon

Check out the Court Ruling Below whereby Randazza successfully WON is argument that A TRO is Unconstitutional.

"No. 3D12-3189 Lower Tribunal No. 11-17842,

Irina Chevaldina, Appellant,
vs.
R.K./FL Management, Inc., et al.,Appellee"

http://3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf

Absolutely Unconstitutional TRO Motion filed by my former attorney Marc Randazza. He was successful in using this Unconstitutional TRO to steal my intellectual property, my work product, my search engine placement, my online content, and flat out steal blogs and domain names with NO First Amendment Adjudication whatsoever

Click Below to Read, and You too Can STEAL Content, Search Engine Placement and Intellectual Property via a TRO.
Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 2 Filed 11/28/12

Also Check Out links below for Tips and Trick to use the Power of the Courts to your Benefit. No worry about those bad reviews or Gripe Sites, just get a TRO and WaLa you OWN the Constitutional Rights and Property of anyone you please. 

"First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group SAYS that Preliminary Injunctions are unconstitutional, they are unlawful prior restraint, they are "patently unconstitutional", they are clearly an "unconstitutional remedy". Especially if there was no prior First Amendment Adjudication."
http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/2017/10/first-amendment-attorney-marc-randazza.html

"Pro Se Litigant Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox Pokes a BIT of FUN at the OUTBREAK of Preliminary Injunctions, Sweeping Rapidly, Seemingly Out of Control, through the District of Nevada, yet Granny Goose Alleges these RULINGS are an "extraordinary remedy". Crystal Cox Calls BULLSHIT. ViaView , Inc. Plaintiff v. BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON; KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR; ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L. CHANSON ~ Randazza V. Cox, Who Will be NEXT?"
http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/2017/10/pro-se-litigant-investigative-blogger.html

"Marc Randazza Defends Rush Limbaugh in ALLEGED Free Speech Rights, While Marc Randazza TAKES away the Rights of Free Speech and First Amendment Rights of ALL Bloggers and Citizens Journalists."
http://whistleblowermediacrystalcox.blogspot.com/2012/03/marc-randazza-defends-rush-limbaugh-in.html

First Amendment Attorney Marc J. Randazza SUES blogger Crystal L. Cox to Suppress her Speech. 5 years later wants her to pay his legal fees for his Unconstitutional Retaliatory Lawsuit against her. $350,000 to SUE a Blogger over a $10 Domain Name that Trademark Attorney, Domain Name, First Amendment Expert Marc Randazza was to damn dumb to buy. WOW. Check out these BILLS folks. All to suppress the speech of someone speaking critical of big baby Marc Randazza.
http://unconstitutionalattorney.blogspot.com/2017/10/first-amendment-attorney-marc-j.html

A Trademark Attorney, First Amendment Expert SUES a former client claiming a Trademark Infringement on Gripe Sites.
https://unconstitutionalattorney.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-trademark-attorney-first-amendment.html


Oh and Don't Miss the Infamous Kaplan Letter where Hypocritical Attorney Marc Randazza and his law firm Randazza Legal Group really lay it on thick. (The opposite argument he made in suing me, Crystal Cox, his former client.)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiZEFJQW95MXNFQUU/view?usp=sharing

Much more Details Coming soon, so that you to Can use the Power and Privilege of our Court System to get a TRO against your enemy speaking critical of you and not have to concern yourself with the First Amendment or any kind of actual factual due process. 

First Amendment Attorney Marc J. Randazza SUES blogger Crystal L. Cox to Suppress her Speech. 5 years later wants her to pay his legal fees for his Unconstitutional Retaliatory Law Suit against her. $350,000 to SUE a Blogger over a $10 Domain Name that Trademark Attorney, Domain Name, First Amendment Expert Marc Randazza was to damn dumb to buy. WOW. Check out these BILLS folks. All to suppress the speech of someone speaking critical of big baby Marc Randazza.

Retaliatory RIPOFF RAT Ronald Green sure does charge his partner, partners wife and child a WHOLE lot of money for RETALIATION against a Whistleblower exposing him and speaking critical of him.  WOW 262k and counting to TRY and take away my First Amendment Rights. What a Bunch of EVIL Dirty Jackasses.

CHECK OUT THIS 262,000 BILL. wow.. HATE TO SEE WHAT HE CHARGES ATTORNEYS THAT ARE NOT HIS PARTNER OR BOSS...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiUlh4MlpYdjAxOVk/view?usp=sharing

And Check out this 111,000 bill .. WOW. Sure cost alot to SUE a blogger for calling you names.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiMGdRSGRPZVMzLVE/view?usp=sharing

Also Check Out

http://UnethicalScumattorney.blogspot.com/

Marc Randazza

Darren Chaker WINS FIRST AMENDMENT APPEAL; Free Speech Case; Leesa Fazal; Free Speech Rights; First Amendment Rights

"On the morning of July 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed a conviction based on First Amendment rights concerning Darren Chaker.

The Cato Institute, ACLU of San Diego, Electronic Frontier Foundation, First Amendment Coalition, and Brechner First Amendment Project at University of Florida filed a joint amicus brief in his support wanting the court to reverse a decision from a San Diego federal judge who found Mr. Chaker violated probation by posting a blog about Nevada Attorney General Investigator Leesa Fazal, of Las Vegas. A compelling opening brief was filed by Federal Defenders of San Diego Inc.

The amicus brief was authored by the Washington D.C. office of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, who is consistently ranked as an international top 20 law firm. See opinion, Darren-Chaker-Appeal, where the Ninth Circuit found absolutely no harassment or defamation took place.

Mr. Chaker was on probation for a white collar crime. The record shows Mr. Chaker’s bankruptcy attorney fraudulently filed a bankruptcy petition without Mr. Chaker’s knowledge. The report states in part, “In my opinion Chaker’s attorney did not exercise a reasonable standard of care in filing a Second Bankruptcy Case without Chaker’s consent and signature. Indeed, in my opinion such conduct is fraudulent.”  See expert report, page 7.  Despite the conduct of his bankruptcy attorney, Mr. Chaker was found guilty of only a single charge at trial. That conviction is being challenged.

While on probation, it was alleged Mr. Chaker made a false statement about Leesa Fazal of Las Vegas. “Specifically, Mr. Chaker wrote that Ms. Fazal, an investigator with the Nevada Office of the Attorney General, had previously been “forced out” of the Las Vegas Police Department.” says First Amendment law professor Clay Calvert at the University of Florida’s Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project.

The blog also addressed the fact Leesa Fazal, a Nevada peace officer, brought her firearm into a San Diego Superior Court while hoping to testify in a family law matter. Leesa Fazal was not allowed to testify, and appears was detained by Sheriff Deputies when told not to leave as she was walking to the exit. It was Mr. Chaker who informed court security she had a firearm on her.

See video https://youtu.be/v9rGkkh84rg [Link is a public record, U.S. District Court Nevada Case No. 2:16-cv-00036.] Scott McMillan, McMillan Law Firm La Mesa, exited the elevator with Ms. Fazal – he apparently may not have advised her she may be breaking the law when they entered court together (but am not sure if she was counseled).

Ms. Fazal complained to the FBI, the Nevada Attorney General, and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and no one arrested or questioned Mr. Chaker.

The Las Vegas Metro Police report stated, in relevant part, “All the evidence was reviewed and does not rise to the level of criminal harassment.”
See,

Ms. Fazal then turned to the probation officer who promptly filed a petition and Mr. Chaker was put in jail. The court “had reviewed a police report prepared by the Las Vegas police department after Ms. Fazal reported Mr. Chaker’s blogposts, and noted that the police ultimately did not forward any charges for prosecution concerning Fazal’s allegations.” Opening Brief, page 7.

Ms. Fazal communicated to the probation officer Mr. Chaker may have had something to do with her firearm being stolen out of her car. However, Ms. Fazal’s own Officer Safety Alert stated –  “The suspect is unknown” see excerpt,

During the probation revocation hearing, “At no point did the probation officer or government contend that the blogposts constituted stalking under the condition, nor did the court make any findings as to stalking.  Instead, the focus was on whether the statement was harassment and defamation.” See Opening Brief, page 12.

As the ACLU of San Diego states, “even if the defamation condition is valid, the court did not require the government to prove that Mr. Chaker made a false statement of fact, subjectively believed his statement to be false, or acted with reckless disregard of its truth.” At the hearing, Mr. Chaker admitted he posted the blog after doing online research. It was never proven what Mr. Chaker posted was “a false statement of fact.” Although Ms. Fazal was flown to San Diego and in court, the government did not call her as a witness. The court found Mr. Chaker violated probation, and an appeal ensued.

Cato Institute stated, “Public officials are appropriate objects of criticism and the protection of their feelings is not the appropriate province of the courts. Chaker’s words don’t even rise to the standard that must be met to constitute defamation of a public figure. Chaker didn’t act with “actual malice” or reckless disregard for the truth when he published his blogpost, which is the mental requirement necessary to sustain such a charge.” The Electronic Frontier Foundationsaid the government’s position would, “eviscerate a half-century of First Amendment protection of political speech criticizing government officials.”

Probation conditions are typically tailored to protect the public from future crime not online comments one takes offense at or believes are defamatory. It is well established speech “may not be suppressed simply because it is offensive.” Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 1989). Mr. Chaker was never sued for defamation or harassment by Ms. Fazal.

The blog consisted of about 421 words. Only two words were found to be false – “forced out”.  No evidence was introduced the statement Mr. Chaker made was in fact false, or that Mr. Chaker knew the statement was false – hence actual malice. As page 27 of the opening brief states, “Without actual malice, the speech is protected by the First  Amendment — even if false and damaging to Fazal’s reputation.  See Alvarez, 132 S. Ct.  at 2550-51 (stating that when a false statement is made without actual malice, the best  remedy is not “handcuffs” but publication of “the simple truth”).”

Mr. Chaker is only one of 4,708,100 people are on probation or parole per a Bureau of Justice Statistics report. People under supervised release are not second class citizens where the First Amendment may be marginalized or discarded unless the speech are in an unprotected class – like true threats or inciting criminal conduct. For government to regulate speech, it must be “integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. Meredith, 685 F.3d 814, 819, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13012, 7, 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,421, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5157 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012) [case cited at page 28 of opening brief] In this case, two words “forced out” were found to be false and Mr. Chaker’s probation was ultimately revoked because of it. 

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court finding Mr. Chaker violated his probation as no evidence of harassment or defamation was presented to the court."

Source of Post
http://darrenchaker.com/darren-chaker-wins-appeal/

Ninth Circuit Ruling Darren Chakerhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiUlZXNFJwbWhOYVk/view?usp=sharing

The Ninth Circuits YouTube Channel is revealing how the court responded to the Governments argument, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMECNd143uc 

15:33 Judge Kozinski to AUSA “she [sentencing judge] did say I am not going to limit your [Chaker’s] First Amendment rights?” AUSA, “that’s correct your honor”;

20:08 Judge Kozinski told the AUSA to go back to her office and watch oral argument with her colleagues to be "properly embarrassed";

23:16 Judge Kozinski to ASUA - “You managed to bamboozle…I mean the United States, managed to fool the district judge imposing the condition…”;

26:31 Judge Kozinski, “It’s okay for the district court to say obey all laws...but this is not at all limited to criminal conduct…this is conduct that is not illegal…agree this is conduct that is not illegal?", reluctantly AUSA said "agreed that the condition reached conduct that is not illegal."

Related News and Press Releases 

https://www.aclusandiego.org/first-amendment-experts-question-courts-clampdown-on-political-speech/

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/feb/3/ninth-circuit-appeal-challenges-probation-revocation-exercising-first-amendment-rights/ 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/internet-free-speech-people-supervised-release-prison 

http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/united-states-v-chaker 

https://www.jou.ufl.edu/news/2015/09/09/brechner-first-amendment-project-joins-amicus-brief-in-california/

https://fee.org/articles/blogging-about-cops-is-not-a-crime-even-if-youre-on-probation/

#FreeSpeech #FreeSpeechRights #FreeSpeechCase #FirstAmendmentRights #BloggersRights

the First Amendment TRUMPS Montana Protective Orders. It is Flat out against the Law to use a protective order to shut up a REPORTER. As soon as Anti-Corruption Film Producer Bill Windsor's case hits federal courts, then goes to the Ninth Circuit, the University of Montana and Montana Law Enforcement will be EXPOSED for using Unconstitutional Protective Orders to Chill Speech and Cover up wide spread corruption in Montana.

The State of Montana is among the most corrupt in the nation.  Montana Law Enforcement, the University of Montana, Montana Judges, Montana Commissioners, Chief of Police County Attorneys, Montana Senators and the Montana Governor are all in on using Protective Orders as if there is real danger and stopping the flow of Free Speech, in clear violation of the First Amendment.

It is not constitutional nor lawful, as proven by higher courts over and over, to chill the speech of reporters. Yet in Montana, Sean Boushie threatened to Kill Me, he harassed me, stalked me, endangered my life and ruined my business. Yet the University of Montana paid him to do so, and ALL levels of Montana Law enforcement protect him.

I was unable to get a protective order against Sean Boushie, though he threatened to kill me. And the 2 different film producers her asked where I would be filmed at, they have no protection either.

Bill Windsor picked up the story of just how corrupt Montana is and how Montana uses protective orders to jail people, death by cop, prison time, suppress speech and more. And then the State of Montana went after Bill Windsor and protected the corruption judges, cops, governor, senators and county attorneys.

Sean Boushie threatened to kill Bill Windsor and is said to have shot at him, yet Bill Windsor, nor I, Crystal Cox could get protection. I was told because Sean Boushie was not my boyfriend, no protective order. Yet he got one against me, because I showed the police his death threat email send to me.

The University of Montana Royce Engstrom ignored this for years, the U of M and Montana Law enforcement at every level ignored rapes in which is what I was reporting on, they ignore and even pay death threat stalkers, and as the years, web stats, documents, and massive proof pile up over years, still the university of Montana does nothing.

Montana jails Bill Windsor for not wanting to be threatened and harassed. It is all true stuff folks. And once there is a civil case filed in federal court. Montana Law enforcement, the U of M, and every level of all this for years will most likely end up paying the Lawless America production company 10's of millions.

Every single word that Bill Windsor of Lawless America has said about the State of Montana, Montana Cops and Judges, Montana Courts, the University of Montana and Sean Boushie, is ALL 100% Factual as far as I have read it and experienced it myself as a Montana Anti-Corruption Blogger who tried to expose all this corruption in Montana for years.

A few Research Links

http://montanacorruption.blogspot.com

http://hamiltonmontananews.blogspot.com

http://montanacorruption.blogspot.com/search?q=Protective+Order

http://eureka-montana-news.blogspot.com/search?q=Sean+Boushie

http://eureka-montana-news.blogspot.com/search?q=Protective+Order

http://judgerobinclute.blogspot.com

http://georgecorn.blogspot.com

http://eureka-montana-news.blogspot.com/2012/05/university-of-montana-has-ignored-this.html

http://eureka-montana-news.blogspot.com/2013/08/university-of-montana-aids-stalker-for.html

Lawless America

University of Montana Stalker
http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1275:stalker-sean-boushie-threatens-bill-windsor-and-his-family-university-of-montana-may-pay-him-to-do-this&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105


Movie Producer Bill Windsor and Montana Investigative Blogger Reporting on corruption in Montana THREATENED from University of Montana employee
http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=856:movie-producer-bill-windsor-and-crystal-cox-threatened-by-stalker-sean-boushie-from-the-university-of-montana&catid=123:news-reports&Itemid=223


Bill Windsor on Serial Stalker Sean Boushie
http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1285:serial-stalker-sean-boushie-has-been-located-in-montana-stalking-many-people&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105


Officer Maury McKinney Serves Crystal Cox, Hamilton Justice Court Robin Clute 
Gives Sean Boushie a Protective Order AGAINST CRYSTAL Cox and Refuse to Give Crystal Cox PROTECTION from the Sean Boushie who had threatened to Kill Her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn6kQnaxsWM


Stephen Mocko Complaint against Sean Boushie regarding Crystal Cox
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142498387/Criminal-Complaint-Filed-Against-Sean-Boushie-by-Stephen-Mocko-Montana-Attorney-Kai-Groenke-Files-Defamation-Lawsuit-against-Sean-Boushie-Lincoln-County-Attorney-Bernie-Cassidy-Dismisses-Serious-Th

Judge Haynes Denies Crystal Cox a Protective Order

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfcycXGrrlU&list=PL575CA7055F319049&index=2

Beneath the Beauty Documentary Trailer, Montana Corruption
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPLi64D96ok

Archive of Bitteroot Rising Site about Motnana Corruption

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/67925465/Bitterroot-Rising-Archive-1

Here is My Ninth Circuit WIN, surely this will be used once Lawless America sues all the players in this including Missoula County, the State of Montana, and the University of Montana. As well as Ravalli County and more.  It is Bill Windsor's Civil Right to report on, tell one and try and get help from those trying to kill him, threatening him, harassing him and ruining his life. It is his First Amendment Right to break the news, report on the Montana Corruption story I was telling about rape and corruption in Montana when he picked up my story and has undergone years of massive attack from those in power in Montana whom are suppose to protect us.

It is going to be so GREAT when all these folks are sued in a Federal Court outside of the Corruption in Montana, and the First Amendment will actually apply.

Here is my case precedence that Gives ALL anti-corruption bloggers Equal rights as Journalists
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/01/17/12-35238.pdf

Marc Randazza Defamatory, False Statement, Fraud on the Court Lawsuit Against his former client Crystal Cox; Randazza et al v. Cox et al - District of Nevada SLAPP Lawsuit against Blogger Crystal Cox to Chill Her Speech, Steal her Blogs and internet placement and harass her and those she reports on.

15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Attorney Marc Randazza uses his power in the courts to file a defaming, flat out lying legal action against his former client AND then use those files to file other legal actions, complaints and a worldwide defamatory campaign.

Nevada SLAPP Suit to Chill the Speech of Blogger Crystal Cox, Speaking CRITICAL of asshole, rogue, lawless attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group.

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

Defendant Crystal Cox's Affirmative Defense in the ALLEGATIONS against her by her her former attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.268.0.pdf

First Amendment Trumps Trademark Law, Randazza should have known that.

Trademark Law should NOT be used to TRAMPLE First Amendment Rights
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.268.0.pdf

Attorney Marc Randazza claims to the courts that he did not represent Crystal Cox, yet he discussed the case with attorney Eugene Volokh and claimed to be representing me, and even discussed filing motions and get court transcripts in moving forward.

Eugene eMail to Cox
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.263.0.pdf

eMail between Cox, Volokh and Randazza, Clearly showing that Randazza and Volokh were acting as Cox's attorney and discussing court motions and transcripts moving forward, and keeping the client, me, in the loop.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.258.0.pdf


Marc Randazza  of Randazza Legal Group lied to the world deliberately painting Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein to be criminals, felony extortionist. Yet clearly as seen below Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group did not, himself believe he was being EXTORTED in any way, but that Cox was only asking for a job, and being unreasonable in his opinion.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.261.0.pdf


Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group agrees to represent Crystal Cox, yet LIES in sworn statements to the court that he did indeed represent me.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.259.0.pdf


Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group 

Attorney Marc Randazza involved in writing Nevada's overreaching SLAPP laws has used the law to try and suppress speech and violate the rights of others, such as blogger Crystal Cox.

Marc Randazza CLEARLY filed a SLAPP lawsuit against blogger Crystal Cox, with the clear motive to shut her up, suppress her speech, steal here blogs and search engine placement and violate her First Amendment rights. Marc J. Randazza used his knowledge, clout and gang of attorney thugs to flat out lie to the media and courts regarding his targets.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group has abused Nevada SLAPP Laws for personal gain.

As a matter of law there is no way, no reason that Crystal Cox's former attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group should have sued her. Yet he did and got Judge Gloria Navarro to give him massive blogs and domain names and to change the server and redirect them all WITHOUT First Amendment Adjudication, to Marc Randazza's blog post that defamed his former client Crystal Cox.

Check out the District of Nevada's DENIAL of Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group SUMMARY Judgement against Crystal Cox. The court clearly shoots down all his gibberish.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

Randazza had no Trademark when he sued Crystal Cox. Even if he did, he cannot use Trademark Law to chill speech, yet that is exactly what he did and Judge Gloria Navarro of the District of Nevada plus Peter Michaelson of WIPO allowed Randazza Legal Group, and Marc Randazza, as well as Ronald Green to do just that.

Marc Randazza is NOT above the Law. Crystal Cox has proved that without a doubt. And now we have a Nevada |SLAPP law scuffle. As Marc Randazza clearly sued Cox in a frivolous Nevada SLAPP Suit, yet when she sues him in a counterclaim of Malpractice and Defamation he cries protection under Nevada SLAPP and does so years after he initially sued her and well past the 60 day deadline. The courts rule against him and he is now whining to the Ninth Circuit.

Click the Links Below for more on the NINTH Circuit Whine by Marc Randazza regarding using Nevada SLAPP laws to attempt to Deny the rights of a former client he sued, defamed and caused irreparable harm, by using Nevada Anti-SLAPP Law.

http://nevadaslapp.blogspot.ie/2015/04/randazza-v-cox-court-denies-yet-another_18.html

http://ethicscomplaint.blogspot.ie/2015/04/marc-randazza-is-using-blogger-crystal.html

Now We See this Headline

''Nevada May Be About To Lose Its Great Anti-SLAPP Law''

''We've mentioned many times the importance of anti-SLAPP laws in protecting people who are being sued solely to try to shut them up. It's still a travesty that we don't have a federal anti-SLAPP law but are reliant on various state anti-SLAPP laws.

 In case you're not familiar with them, SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation." Anti-SLAPP laws basically allow people who are sued to quickly get lawsuits dismissed when it's obvious that the entire point of the lawsuit is to silence whoever is being sued, rather than for any legitimate legal purpose. For years, California was seen as having one of the best anti-SLAPP laws, but in recent years both Texas and Nevada upped the ante in anti-SLAPP laws, making them even stronger. Nevada's had a particularly useful feature: it would award "reasonable costs, attorney's fees and monetary relief" for defendants who were wrongfully hit with SLAPP suits. Basically, it provided a real deterrent against SLAPP suits. ''

Full Article and Source
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150416/16534230679/nevada-may-be-about-to-lose-great-anti-slapp-law.shtml

Marc Randazza hit blogger Crystal Cox with a SLAPP suit and she was NOT given any rights. Now Marc Randazza wants to deny legitimate counter claims against his bad behavior as her former attorney, by ABUSING NEVADA Anti-SLAPP Laws.

Looks to me like Marc Randazza will not win his appeal at the NINTH, seems now he has 20 days and so many changes to the overreaching laws he wrote and made money from.

Here is the Nevada SLAPP 444 Senate Bill (a Game Changer for Whiny Randazza)
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkicFAwazl1RVNzdWc/edit

Full Docket of Nevada SLAPP Lawsuit Marc Randazze filed against 

former client Blogger Crystal Cox.  http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

A Bit More on Senate Bill 444

''Section 5 of this bill requires a special motion to dismiss to be filed within 20

21 days of service of the complaint, and to be limited to the issue of whether the claim 

22  arises from a communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to 

23  free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern. If the court 

24  determines that such a claim does not arise from a communication in furtherance of 

25  the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of 

26  public concern, section 6 of this bill requires the court to deny the special motion to 

27  dismiss. If the court determines that the claim does arise from a communication in 

28  furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection 

29  with an issue of public concern, section 7 of this bill requires the plaintiff to 

30  establish prima facie evidence supporting each and every element of the claim other 

31  than elements requiring proof of the subjective intent or knowledge of the 

32 defendant. Section 7 further requires the court to determine whether the plaintiff 

33 has established such prima facie evidence within

34 plaintiff’s filing of briefs and supporting evidence.''

Read the Whole Document at the Link Below

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkicFAwazl1RVNzdWc/edit

I would say Marc Randazza is kind of screwed in his Ninth Circuit appeal, oh well, we shall see how it all plays out. Poor DUMBDAZZA, still biting at the heels of Super Blogger Crystal Cox.

Nevada Attorney Marc Randazza who filed a SLAPP Lawsuit AGAINST his former client, Blogger Crystal Cox to SUPRESS her Speech and is NOT really a First Amendment Advocate for all. And even illegally and unethically uses Trademark Law to Chill Speech, Well he is accused of Bribes connected to Nevada Slapp Law, Check it Out.