Dec 22, 2014

Randazza Legal Group Porn Attorney Marc Randazza sued Crystal Cox, Eliot Bernstein, Monica Foster / Alexandra Mayers and Desi Foxx / Diana Grandmason in order to discredit their reporting and to SILENCE Porn Industry Whistleblowers.

Check this out I found on Alexandria Mayer aKa Monica Foster's amazing whistle blower, insider, investigative blogs exposing the Porn INDUSTRY.

I, Crystal Cox, ALLEGE that Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group and the Randazza Legal Groupies ( his Gang Stalking buddies that are attorneys and media) harass Porn Insiders in order to protect the "Russian Mob".

"A Russian Mob sex party in Miami Beach! Chapter 5 preview of Desi Foxx’s first book PITV"

desi foxx collage

Diana fka Desi Foxx – follow her twitter @DesiFoxx

Alexandra Mayers fka Monica Foster commentary: Enjoy this literary preview from my good friend Diana (formerly known as Desi Foxx).
There is SO MUCH to who Diana truly is and the details of her life’s story – however rather than me going on and on, I simply ask that you take the time to get to know her by reading the preview below and by following her work on
At the point where I was scheduled for my second shoot, my daughter had worked pretty much non-stop since signing up with the porn agency on November 7th. She had flown to several different states for work and was already handling herself as a professional model. I was still quite naive to what she was experiencing and what the porn industry was really about. My daughter was 21. She wasn’t about to share everything with me. I could tell she was changing though and I needed to know why.
My first shoot had gone pretty well as it was a real magazine shoot and apart from the few short solo videos and hardcore shots which were a surprise addition when I got to the set, what I’d experienced so far was pretty harmless from a hardcore porn standpoint. I had signed up to work in the porn industry to keep tabs on my daughter and see for myself if this so-called ‘legal’ sex industry would be really safe and empowering for her.
desi_foxx01At this point in my life, I’d only had experiences going to strip clubs and partying with dancers while hanging out with guys at work and my second husband (who was now an ex). I had found that type of sex work came with many more problems then any type of power or control for the girls. 

They could make good money at times but the cost was permanently damaging to their mental and emotional growth and many would agree sex work was not worth the price they personally paid. I still hadn’t had seen what doing porn could offer. The results of my first shoot wouldn’t be released for 3-6 months so what I’d done did feel empowering to me at the moment. I was 47 years young and had just finished my first nude layout. Did I feel like a model? Not really, but maybe a little!
Though what I knew was limited, I quickly learned how to get my fair share of information beginning the moment we met with our new ‘agent’. We spent time with other girls who had been in the industry for months or even years. We were readily accepted and wherever I went, people called me ‘Mom’. It was easy to understand why I was adopted as the house mom. I have always had a close relationship with my children and their friends. I know how to relate to young people. 

I was considered to be one of the ‘cool moms’. Not because I tried to be one of them but I was realistic about what it was like to be young. I hadn’t had the easiest times as a teen so I would relate how I had gotten through. This is how I came to learn about the college parties. All the girls were talking about them and I was never afraid to ask questions or give some common sense advice.
While my daughter was home at the end of November, her agent called to discuss a new shoot he wanted to schedule her for. It was one of these college parties. 

They wanted her to be an extra. She would get paid to party and hang out in the background while they shot a college party sex scene. We had heard a few stories about the college party shoots so she had told our agent she wouldn’t work them. She agreed to the schedule right away though since she wouldn’t be having sex while there. What girl wouldn’t like to get paid to party?I was more concerned about what would happen to her once she got there.
Elli went to the shoot and when she got home, she told me all about it. We never talked details of the sex we had, on or off camera, but all the activities associated with a shoot were fair game. She said it was a wild time for all the girls. She was very glad she wasn’t there to work in the sex scene. (To this day, I don’t know if she really was an extra or if she ended up working as a performer at the party and didn’t want to tell me. 

I’m still learning about what she really did and went through while working as a sex slave in Porn Valley). They got the female performers drunk. Then the male performers took over and the orgy began. There weren’t that many girls so each girl had several guys working them over. There were a number of spectators there who, I later learned, had paid to watch a live sex show. From what I heard from her and the other girls, I was just glad she was home and as far as I could tell, still in one piece.
desi_foxx02-199x300Within a week or so, she headed back to Los Angeles for another round of go sees and shoots already scheduled. I was at home in Miami getting ready to move into our new condo. Elli was working to pay for the deposit and I was in charge of the details. When we first moved to Miami, I was looking at apartments for rent for under $1000 so we could afford our bills without struggling. 

Once Elli was shown she could make some good money doing porn, and she was making more money then I was, she and our agent chose a lush condo for $2100 a month. I realized I was not in control anymore. My daughter was making our financial decisions. It was then my job to get the paperwork completed, utilities set up, furniture delivered and hire someone to help us get our stuff from storage in Bradenton.
Elli decided she wanted me to be her manager at this point, which was fine with me. It was a way for me to be involved in everything she was doing. It also made the agents and producers have to answer to me with what they were going to do with my daughter. She was in Los Angeles, in the hands of our agent at the moment and he was who she was listening to. As long as I was in the agency and acting as her manager, our agent had to listen to me.
I was home doing the typical mom things though I sure wasn’t feeling like a typical mom. That was when our agent’s assistant, Karen, called. They needed more females for a college party scheduled in a few days and they thought I’d fit right in. I didn’t really understand how a 47 year old woman would fit into a college party. 

That was when she reminded me of ‘Mrs. Robinson’. Even the movie, “Animal House” had the dean’s wife who was definitely a cougar. While discussing whether I should do this shoot, I learned the facts about the cougar and MILF market. Geez, did I have a lot to absorb if I was going to truly ‘fit in’ with the American porn scene!
By now, all the girls were talking about these parties. Once a girl went to one, it was highly unlikely she’d do another. A couple of girls who were heavily involved with these producers had left the industry after working these parties for a few months. One was traumatized by what she’s experienced and two others were having drug problems. I didn’t find this out until several months after I did this shoot. There were rumors flying but nothing that was being taken seriously by industry leaders there. 

Girls were still being scheduled to these parties and problems were said to be the results of unstable girls, not unscrupulous producers. My daughter was being courted by the company behind these parties. While they had protected her when she worked for them, if she became involved further with them, I wanted to know that she’d be safe and clean so I agreed to do the shoot.
My daughter called to check in and I told her that I had a shoot scheduled for a college party. She became instantly upset, telling me I didn’t need to do the shoot. She was making plenty of money. I told her I wanted to see what was going on. She told me she knew what was going on and it wasn’t a good idea for me to be part of it. We hung up agreeing to disagree. I found out later she chewed out our agent for even suggesting it. Her reaction is what makes me question what she really witnessed that night she worked one of these illegal porn productions. 

She insisted I not go. While I wish I could’ve listened to her, what I learned by working at that party was the beginning of my education in the reality of American porn production. There really is no way sex work can be a legal industry. Once the clothes come off, it quickly becomes a ‘No Holds Barred’ kind of environment. Especially against the females and in favor of all males!
 “It’s a well known fact that the Russian mob DIRECTLY controls much of Florida’s strip club ownership.”
In the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/West Palm area in 2007, the Russian owned strip clubs there were heavily involved in moving girls from shooting porn into stripping and prostituting and vice versa. More than one pimp there tried to purchase my daughter for their stable. My second shoot was to perform in a live sex show at a Russian mob party. 

The production company was owned by a well known Brazilian pimp who went by Gino Starr Productions. I sat on our balcony one night while this man spoke to me about letting my daughter become part of his stable. He told me his girls were very happy working for him. She would be treated very well. I explained that she wasn’t going to be part of that scene. I already knew his girls were drug addicts and he was regularly violent with them. It was a somewhat tense moment but he respected my decision. He left my house that night and never bothered her again. This was after we’d each worked a college party of his.
Of course, I didn’t know any of this when I agreed to work the college party shoot but it was very evident from the moment we arrived at the ‘set’. The ‘set’ was a typical ranch style home located in a N. Miami residential neighborhood known for its’ Russian ethicity. I learned some of this while on the way to the shoot. 

I met 2 other performers from our agency in the parking lot of a store where I left my car and they were dropped off by our agent’s assistant. It was a young Hispanic female performer named Sofie. She said she was 19 but I found her behavior to be immature for the typical 19 year old. The other performer was a brute 6.5 foot tall black male performer called Ty who was there to perform and to keep an eye on the two of us. Our agent knew the rumors. Little did we know at the time, he also knew they were true!
We were picked up by a town car in the parking lot and taken to the home we were to work in. On the way, I learned we were going to a Russian neighborhood and it was rumored it was a mob party we were working. Sofie was scared and was adamant she didn’t want to be there. She needed the money and our agent needed her to work so she was there but made it clear she wasn’t happy about it. I told her to stick by me and Ty so we could keep an eye on her. If it got too bad for her, she just needed to speak up. We would make sure she was heard.
We got to the house where there were many cars and several people running around setting up the scene. We were told to go out back where there was a buffet to enjoy while we waited. We were impressed with the spread of food and happily filled plates, then remembering we were about to have sex so we couldn’t fill up on the heavy stuff. 

We were handed drinks of Russian vodka and told we had a 2 drink limit. I was fine with that as it was nice to relax for the moment but having sex on a porn set was hard work and this was the first time in my life I was going to have group sex. I imagined it would take a ton of energy and paying attention to what was happening around us. I sure didn’t want to be drunk and I had promised to look out for Sofie so I had to be aware of our surroundings.
While we ate and waited to begin shooting, I was photographed with a handful of elders whom I wonder if they were the Godfathers of the group. The shoot really was a spectator party at a mob member’s home in North Miami Beach and we had to wait for all the paying patrons to arrive. 

We were taken aside at different times to go over what was expected of us. It was decided we would work in the living room of the house. There was a large red sofa we would all fit on. It was then we found out there were only 4 girls who showed up. Sofie, myself, Kendra Lee from Los Angeles and another I never even met. She was at the opposite end of the couch. They had more than a dozen male performers. They told a few they’d get paid as extras to stand with spectators and chose 12 males, which in turn meant a 3 to1 ratio of males on females.
The setup began with 4 males on the couch and the 4 of us giving oral sex to them. Male performers moved in behind each of us to perform intercourse with us while we performed oral sex on the couch males. Lastly, they moved the other 4 males into place beside us. While being penetrated from behind and giving oral sex from the front, we were to perform hand manipulation on the males standing to our sides while they played with and groped our bodies. It was mind numbing to try to keep track of all that activity. We really just tried to brace ourselves so the males could move in and out of our body orifices smoothly and keep body parts open for touching and filming. I learned quickly exactly what hardcore was all about. 
The shoot was in high speed and activity so frenzied we hardly noticed when the back of the sofa broke and we all tumbled forward onto the person in front of us. We started laughing and the filming was stopped. I was handed a drink and guzzled it down quickly. My throat was already dry and sore and the room was heating up incredibly fast. 

The back of the sofa was propped back up as good as they could get it and we repositioned slightly to shift our weight off of it. The filming began again with the females on hands and knees. Sofie was next to me and was beginning to freak out. I told her to close her legs and straighten her back some. It would keep the males from penetrating her so deeply. I took one of her males so had 4 on me now. It was then things began to blur.
The drink I was handed was Russian vodka I believe to be spiked. We were 4 females who were gang banged by at least a dozen males. I was one of those females though I don’t know who I had sex with at that shoot. For months afterward, I would meet male performers on sets or at events and they’d say, “Oh, yeah. We met. I did you at that college party”. Well, as far as I remember, we each had 3 males assigned to us and I took one of Sofie’s but 2 of those were hand work only, I thought. 

What one of them finally told me was every guy there took a turn behind me. This was not part of my shoot agreement and not what I got paid for. And I don’t remember this happening because once I took that drink, everything became a blur. That is, until I was pulled off the sofa by a strip club owner’s bodyguard and hauled into a bedroom where I was held and forced to have sex with the club owner.
Once we were in the bedroom, the bodyguard set me down on my feet and the owner told me what he wanted. I tried to explain I didn’t do side jobs. He made me realize I didn’t have a choice as the bodyguard moved in front of the door. All of a sudden, banging came from the door and Ty was yelling to let him in. I was barely conscious at this point so all I could think was to demand my bodyguard be let in so I would feel safe. They agreed and Ty stepped into the room and the door closed again behind him. I explained what they wanted and that we were going to the bathroom for privacy. We both knew he couldn’t do anything except be my witness and try to keep things under control. 

The owners bodyguard was even bigger than Ty and had a gun attached to his side. The owner lit a joint and set out some lines of coke on the counter. I took a line and hit the joint. If I was going to have to have sex with this guy, I figured I needed to wake up and do what I could to minimize the damage. I hadn’t done many drugs since I was a teen but I knew they would help me now. I encouraged him to partake as much as he could. I thought maybe it would inhibit his abilities to do anything to me and then we’d be let out of this nightmare we suddenly found ourselves in.
While the owner, who btw looked exactly like Keifer Sutherland, was doing some lines, I reached into the shower stall and turned on the water, adjusting it to a lukewarm temperature. I had been having group sex with who knows how many people. I was hot and sweaty and needed to wake up. I also thought if we had to have sex and it was unprotected, it might help clean away the germs. I asked about a condom. 

He laughed. He grabbed me and set me on the counter, undid his zipper and entered me. Ty’s in the bedroom asking if I’m alright. I’m looking at the shower trying to figure out how to get us in there. Ty comes around the corner of the doorway, brings a joint in and hands it to me. I hit it and give it to the owner. He stops penetrating me and takes a long toke. I jumped from the counter while he’s distracted and into the water where I would be slippery and harder to hold.
I started dancing in the shower. He became mesmerized so I could see I was safe for the moment. I performed a sexy shower dance which seemed to please him until he climbed in with me. He was clothed. I was naked. He pushed me up against the shower stall wall and then I heard voices. I looked over his shoulder and it was the director of the scene we were shooting. He starts screaming when he saw I’was all wet. He yells, “We have to finish the scene. She’s got to come now. You’ve got to come now.” 

The director grabs my arm and drags me back to the couch where we get back into position. Everyone is yelling “Desi, the sex machine”. The director yelled, “Cut” and everyone said, “That’s a wrap”. The next thing I knew, I was standing alone in the living room. That is, except for a half dozen or so male spectators who saw me standing there naked.
“The party attendees each paid $250 to watch the live sex show that night. The video has never been released to my knowledge. I always wondered if it went into someone’s private collection and if that was the reason it was produced in the first place!”
I was almost gang raped by the group of spectators at that shoot after being gang raped by an unknown number of male performers and raped by a male member of this criminal network. I was in the living room looking for my clothes so I could leave and was cornered by this group of men. No one was around us. 

They circled me, one pushed me over and they all held me while another started to undo his pants behind me. I started screaming and luckily, Ty heard me and came to my rescue once again. He broke up the crowd as nicely as he could since these men weren’t happy about being interrupted.
This producer’s parties (called College Parties in the videos) are the type of shoots ALL THE NEW TEEN GIRLS are booked to. I went to find out what they were going through because I had heard rumors of bad things. Almost every single girl who ends up in the porn industry goes through this same experience. This is what Florida strip club owners are involved in. This is what the Los Angeles porn industry is doing in the State of Florida.
Porn Beach, Florida is their 2nd home!


Dec 9, 2014

Randazza V. Cox Lanham Act, Trademark Infringement, District of Nevada; Plaintiff Marc Randazza HAS no Case against Blogger Crystal Cox and NEVER Did.

Randazza et al v. Cox et al
District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040

Cause;  15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Nature Of Suit:  840 Trademark

Below is a Video of me, Crystal Cox discussing
the Original Complaint and Reading some of it.

Here is a Link to the Original Complaint attorney Marc Randazza filed against Blogger Crystal Cox to shut down and steal her gripe sites exercising her Free Speech Rights over him.

Below is a DENIAL of a Summary Judgement in Which
Shoots Down ALL of Marc Randazza, Plaintiff's ALLEGED "cause of action".

Below is a Video of Me Reading the Denial of Randazza's Summary

Here is the Entire Docket

Randazza et al v. Cox et al
District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040

Cause;  15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Nature Of Suit:  840 Trademark

– 15 U.S.C. § 8131






Nov 17, 2014

The First Amendment TRUMPS Trademark. Yet First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza gets court to STEAL massive gripe sites from Blogger Crystal Cox claiming "Trademark" Violations. Talk about Abuse of Process and Abuse of Privilege as an Officer of the Court.

Research Links for those Researching Cases in which 
the First Amendment Trumps Trademark

First Amendment Trumps Trademark in Call of Duty Case

District Court Holds That First Amendment Trumps Trademark Rights

When does the First Amendment trump trademark law? 11th Circuit adopts Rogers v. Grimaldi test

E.S.S. Entm’t 2000 v. Rock Star Videos: First Amendment Trumps Trademark Rights

EFF to Court: A Trademark Is Not A Censorship Tool

First Amendment TRUMPS Trademark;  Big Ruling Says Using Trademarks In Artistic Works Can Be Protected Under The First Amendment

The Constitutional Trump Card: How a Trademark Infringement Game is Won Using a First Amendment Defense
"This session will address the tension between constitutional protections for expressive works and the Lanham Act’s prohibition on trademark infringement, unfair competition and false advertising.

Our speaker will discuss the expanding popularity of the Rogers v. Grimaldi First Amendment defense test and how his firm successfully used the Rogers test to defend a video game industry client in a trademark infringement action."

Overview of Trademark Law
"Finally, certain parodies of trademarks may be permissible if they are not too directly tied to commercial use. The basic idea here is that artistic and editorial parodies of trademarks serve a valuable critical function, and that this critical function is entitled to some degree of First Amendment protection. The courts have adopted different ways of incorporating such First Amendment interests into the analysis. For example, some courts have applied the general "likelihood of confusion" analysis, using the First Amendment as a factor in the analysis. Other courts have expressly balanced First Amendment considerations against the degree of likely confusion. Still other courts have held that the First Amendment effectively trumps trademark law, under certain circumstances. In general, however, the courts appear to be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark."

When Does the First Amendment Trump Trademark Law?
11th Circuit Adopts Rogers v. Grimaldi Test

Trademark Laws SHOULD NOT be used to trample First Amendment Rights
"In a blog post titled “NACCP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” Radiance Foundation Inc. (“Radiance”) stated that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) holds “all things liberal, most things socialistic, and nothing pro-life.” On April 24th, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found Radiance liable for trademark infringement and trademark dilution for its use of NAACP’s trademark in its blog post. Radiance Found., Inc. v. NAACP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57431. The court ruled that Radiance violated the Lanham Act, provisions 15 U.S.C. §1114 and 1125, as well as Virginia Code §59.1-92.12(i), VA. Code Ann. § 59.1-92.12(i) (West 2011). Radiance appealed, and the EFF and ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of Radiance.

Building on three prior Circuit Court cases holdings that “artistic or political use of a trademark” and “literary titles” do not violate the Lanham Act “so long as the level of relevance to the underlying work is merely . . . above zero,” the EFF and the ACLU argue that Radiance’s use of the term “NAACP” in an article title was not infringing on a confusion theory. Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002), and E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 547 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir 2008). The brief reasons that “Radiance’s use of NAACP’s trademark in the title of an article was directly relevant to the article’s political goal and did not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the article.”  The brief emphasizes that Rogers, Mattel, and E.S.S. Entertainment showed “that the First Amendment broadly protects cultural reference, commentary, criticism and parody, including when such speech uses anther’s trademark.”"


Roll (Over) Tide! Free Speech Trumps Trademark Rights

"[A] recent federal court decision from Virginia would allow trademarks to trump speech. 

In that case, Radiance Foundation v. NAACP, the fight was over a blog post that criticized the NAACP. The Radiance Foundation is a conservative non-profit that advocates for what it perceives to be appropriate family values. In a blog post titled “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” Radiance claimed that the NAACP embraces “all things liberal, most things socialistic, and nothing pro-life.”

The NAACP responded with a letter to Radiance threatening a lawsuit if it did not cease “using” the NAACP’s trademark. Radiance called on the courts for protection, asking for a declaration the blog post was protected speech. After a bench trial, Judge Raymond Jackson ruled against Radiance, finding that Radiance’s post infringed the NAACP’s trademark …."

Source and More

The First Amendment TRUMPS Trademark 

Especially in Gripe Sites but NOT when it comes to First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza Suing Blogger Crystal Cox to retaliate, to suppress speech, to intimidate, to defame and paint her in false light to the world. Then Trademark is KING and Marc Randazza uses his power over the court process to take massive online content for 2 years and counting.   Marc Randazza stole blogs, domain names, search engine ranking and all with lies to the courts and cries of Trademark VIOLATION which were flat out FALSE.

More on Marc Randazza's Hypocrisy

Summary Judgment Denial Marc Randazza v. Crystal Cox case

Randaza v. Cox Docket, Including Counter Claim
Marc Randazza claimed my Gripe sites violated his ALLEGED "Trademark".

if you are Reading this and are an Attorney that wants to represent me in Randazza v. Cox, Please eMail me at; I have a GREAT Counter Claim and you could make some money.

May 5, 2014

Crystal Cox Blogger; First Amendment Blogger Case, Crystal Cox Free Speech Case, First Amendment Advocate Bloggers; Crystal Cox Blogger files Supreme Court Petition to STAND up for ALL Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistleblowers.

Crystal Cox Blogger; Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; First Amendment, Free Speech, Defamation Lawsuit, Shield Laws, Retractions Laws; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731

Make a Stand FOLKS; Dare to Report the News 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox; Supreme Court of the United States Filing;

"The Petitioner is an Activist Litigant making a stand for the rights of all Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers."

Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731


Petitioner requests this court to issue a ruling that requires the Ninth Circuit to redact criminal allegations of Petitioner in a Ninth Circuit civil court ruling dated January 17th, 2014, Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit Case Number; 12-35319; D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00057- HZ.

This issue is a matter that affects all members of the public.

Ninth Circuit Judges; Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.,and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, stated:

“. Cox apparently has a history of making similar
allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.
See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech, N.Y.
Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. Padrick and Obsidian sent Cox
a cease-and-desist letter, but she continued posting
allegations. This defamation suit ensued.”

Defendant Crystal Cox has no history of posting anything online and seeking a retraction for a payment. This is not based in fact, and has NEVER happened, as the court record clearly shows.

Cox was never “determined” by any court to have posted allegation, then sought a retraction, then continued posting and was sued. This is factually incorrect. 

Cox alleges the Ninth Circuit violated her constitutional rights in alleging criminal activity and has stated in error, the events leading up to her defamation suit.

Cox asks this court to rule that criminal allegations be redacted from the Obsidian v. Cox Ninth Circuit ruling dated January 17th, 2014.

Petitioner Cox understands that it is at the sole judicial discretion of this court to hear this matter.  

Cox prays that this court will hear this matter as these judicial actions will potentially chill speech and violate the rights of other citizen journalists, whistleblowers and anti-corruption bloggers such as Cox.


Petitioner requests this court to decide the following questions:

Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty?

Do Ninth Circuit Judges have the legal authority to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case?

Does Petitioner, Litigants, in a Civil Case have a legal right to due process of law, in cases where Judges RULE that Litigants, such as petitioner have committed crimes of which Petitioner was not on trial for nor was a matter of record in the lower court ?

Do Ninth Circuit Judges have to find a Defendant Guilty of a Crime, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, or to have been Adjudicated of that crime in a U.S Court, BEFORE they rule that a litigant such as petitioner is guilty of this criminal behavior or criminal activities?

Do litigants, such as petitioner, have a Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights
and Due Process of Law Rights that have to be adjudicated for a crime before a Ninth Circuit Judicial Panel can issue an “opinion” in a highly publicized, higher court, esteemed ruling, regarding that alleged crime?

Do Ninth Circuit Judges have a lawful right to use a New York Times article as adjudicated fact and material evidence to issue a ruling that a litigant in a civil case is guilty of criminal activity?

Is it Lawful for Ninth Circuit Judges to use gossip, hearsay and the rantings of a New York Times Journalist as adjudicated fact, and use this as factual evidence in a Ninth Circuit Ruling?

Can the Court of Appeals Prejudice a Litigant with false and defamatory language in a ruling?  
Does a litigant have a right to have the language in the ruling challenged or reviewed by an independent Court, (for example, the Supreme or another Appellate Court not involved in the decision with the defamatory and legally abusive language that prejudices the rights of the litigant in rehearing) ?

Does the court have the right to defame and slander litigants and deny due process?

Do judges have the right to convict litigants of crimes in judicial rulings 
based on New York Times articles?

Do Judges have a right to deny due process in lower courts by issuing a ruling that convicts litigants of crimes, thereby prejudicing them with a jury of their peers, as they return to have a new trial?

Do judges involved in a slanderous, possibly criminally defamatory statement have a legal and constitutional right to rule on whether they rehear this issue of them acting inappropriately and unlawful in that very ruling?

Is it lawful and within the constitutional rights of a Defendant such as Petitioner, for a panel of judges to use a New York Times article to convict a litigant in a civil trial of a crime of which they have not been adjudicated of?"


To establish firm guidelines for all district court, judges and appellate courts that it is not constitutional, ethical nor lawful to render rulings that accuse litigants of criminal activity of which they have not had due process of law in regard to. To guarantee the rights, liberty, equality, freedom, due process rights, and free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution for all citizens, pro se litigants, anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistleblowers alike. To guarantee the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of all. To guarantee the rights of due process and the Bill of Rights to all. To end extreme prejudice by local, state, and federal judges whom use their power and position to silence, intimidate, suppress speech, bully, paint in false light, slander and defame litigants who expose corruption in the judicial system and of whom they have extreme prejudice in regard to.
This case involves wrongful, non-adjudicated allegations of criminal conduct made by Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ against Petitioner, Defendant Cox and clearly violating her constitutional rights, human rights, and rights to due process, as a matter of law. ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ Stated that Petitioner Cox; " has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction." 

Which thereby leads the public at large, media and the lower court in her pending $10 Million dollar Civil Case, to believe that Cox has been under investigation by authorities and found guilty of the crime of extortion or blackmail. As it is ILLEGAL to make allegations and seek a payoff to retract those allegations. Cox prays this Court orders the Ninth Circuit to redact the above statement.

Petitioner Cox alleges that it is not fair, ethical, equitable in rights, constitutional, nor appropriate as a matter of law and rules of procedure for Ninth Circuit judges or District Court Judges to state unrelated allegations, rumor and speculation in an esteemed higher court ruling, that is published to the world and affects the life of Petitioner forever, as well as affects all whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers like her. Petitioner Cox alleges that it is an abuse of power and process, and an extreme violation of her human and civil rights, for Judges to use hearsay and rumors as adjudicated fact in an esteemed, higher court process, and to seek revenge, retaliate, and use extreme prejudice against Petitioner and litigants like her by using a prestigious court ruling to paint Petitioner in false light, slander and defame Petitioner and cause her a lifetime of irreparable harm. 

Petitioner alleges that it is the duty of Ninth Circuit judges to report anyone they deem a danger to the public. If ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believe Cox to have a history of extortionate or blackmailing conduct, then it is their duty as public servants to order a criminal investigation by the proper authorities and it is NOT their duty, nor legal right to simply, flat out state, that Cox has a history of these criminal actions and thereby defame and slander Cox and put her under extreme prejudice as she heads back to the lower court Pro Se to face a $10 Million dollar civil court proceeding.
Petitioner and bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists like her, face extreme prejudice in the courts, as they are oftentimes exposing judges, attorneys and people in powerful positions such as CEO’s and Politicians. This court ruling, essentially gives the rights to all Judges at every level of our court system, and essentially all institutional press “traditional journalists” to simply accuse litigants of crimes, activities, or unethical behavior, based on gossip and hearsay of an institutional press journalists such as Kashmir Hill of Forbes or David Carr of the New York Times, and have that be stated in a Ninth Circuit ruling as adjudicated fact. Petitioner alleges that it violates her constitutional rights and the rights of those who engage in the same online activity as her, for Judges to essentially take “pot shots”, add in gossip and hearsay into a ruling and thereby slander, defame and ruin the life of the litigant. 

Especially in cases such as the petitioner where she faces a retrial in a $10 million dollar civil case where she is indigent and cannot afford an attorney and this criminal accusation prejudices her lower court ruling before the trial even begins.

Petitioner alleges that allowing Ninth Circuit judges to state arbitrary allegations and accusations in authoritative higher court opinions, will potentially chill the online speech of all bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists. As they will fear the same thing happening to them. This is a critical first amendment issue. And a critical issue of due process laws, the fourteenth amendment, civil rights and human rights. Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right to due process in the criminal justice system and that it violates her constitutional rights for higher court, esteemed judges to rule on matters of her alleged criminal activity BEFORE she has been adjudicated or under investigation by the proper courts and legal procedure in the criminal justice system. These accusations by Ninth Circuit judges prejudice the litigants such as petitioner in the re-trial at the D.C. level and put them under extreme prejudice in all matters of their life, even things as simple as renting a home or getting a job. 

Those researching litigants such as petitioner find a higher court ruling, issued by esteemed judges in a powerful position of which the public at large deems to be of the utmost authority, in which accuses the litigant of criminal activities, of extortionate behavior. 

This is a violation of Petitioners rights of due process and constitutional rights, as she now faces extreme prejudice, hate, inequality and duress in all aspects of her life. She is deemed a criminal, when she has not had due process in the criminal justice system. This precedence now makes it so that judges everywhere can do this same thing to essentially punish, retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers. Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty? 

Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right for it to be proven, as a matter of law, "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she is guilty of a crime, before Judges are allowed, by law, to state those allegations in a court ruling, a court opinion. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. There was neither in the Ninth Circuit appeal of Obsidian v. Cox. Petitioner Cox alleges that Judges must have “Clear and Convincing Proof” beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE they are, by law allowed to state such allegations in a higher court ruling. Cox was not on trial for crimes or civil matters involving allegations, investigations or even a cause of action regarding posting content or allegations of others online and then seeking a payoff to remove those allegations, (aKa Extortion or Blackmail). 

Cox was on trial for defamation, and that this was the only cause of action. 

There was no "seeking a payoff" to remove allegations, as a material factor of Obsidian v. Cox nor a factor in this case what so ever, therefore it was not a matter of record and cannot legally be brought into the Ninth Circuit proceeding, and certainly not, as a matter of law and constitutional rights, be stated in a Ninth Circuit court of appeals ruling, opinion. 
Petitioner Cox alleges that her Due Process of Law, Fourteenth Amendment Rights, and her rights under the Bill of Rights, have been violated by Judges accusing her of criminal activity in rulings / opinions in civil cases of which these crimes have nothing to do with. Cox alleges this is retaliation for her exposing corruption that involves judges, and people with financial and political power. Petitioner Cox alleges that she has a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. 

Yet Cox was not given notice of the crimes alleged, nor a way to present her side. 

Cox was not given due process, as a matter of law and constitutional rights and Cox has thus lost her life as she knew it, her liberty and has lost personal property in this matter. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." 

This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. Petitioner Cox was not given due process, and was simply ruled guilty of criminal activities, with a New York Times article as material evidence in the matter and was thereby “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). Yet petitioner Cox was not given due process in the criminal justice system nor has Cox been adjudicated for or even under investigation for the crime of extortion, yet high court judges accused Cox of extortionate behavior in a ruling of a civil case, a defamation case, unrelated in it’s material fact, evidence and testimony to the crime of extortion and to of having “a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”, which is essentially the felony crime of blackmail, or extortion. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government. 

Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the means whereby the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to protect individuals such as Petitioner from arbitrary actions by state as well as federal governments, which includes the arbitrary actions of an esteemed higher court judicial panel in accusing petition and future litigants like her, of criminal activity of which was not a material factor in her case, and was simply hearsay by a traditional journalist of the institutional press, in this case a New York Time journalist, David Carr.

Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, and in this case there was severe prejudice and inequality and Cox has thereby suffered harm, and wishes this court to remedy this ruling to protect future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself. Petitioner Cox alleges that, under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and other human rights and civil rights laws, and constitutional amendments, that the actions of these judges deprived her of "fundamental fairness" and of Civil Rights under the Due Process Clause. 

And now has the potential to do so to ALL future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself. 

And with this gives far reaching, unconstitutional powers to the institutional press and traditional journalists to publish gossip, hearsay and allegations and have Ninth Circuit judges and judges across the land, use these traditional journalists “opinion”, “writings”, “allegations” as adjudicated facts, hard and fast evidence, and sworn testimony that gives them the right to issue opinions and rulings that flat out accuse litigants such as petitioner of criminal activity of which they have not had due process of law in regard to. The Bill of Rights contains provisions that are central to procedural due process. 

These protections give a person a number of rights and freedoms including the right to be told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Petitioner Cox was deprived of these rights, as Judges simply portrayed to the world she was guilty of criminal acts without having due process and without being told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The Decision of the Ninth Circuit to allow statement of non-adjudicated criminal accusations to be put into a ruling in a civil case, whereby the litigant has not had due process for those allegations is Clearly Incorrect. Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ erred in stating that Cox had a history of these criminal activities and erred in stating the New York Times as their evidence of fact and material facts of law. Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges do not have a lawful, constitutional right to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case. Petitioner Cox alleges that she was denied a legal right to due process of law in this ruling that slandered and defamed her, and painted her in false light, thereby affecting the rest of her life. Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ did not find Cox guilty of these allegations beyond a reasonable doubt nor did they adjudicate Cox, charge Cox with these allegations nor use adjudicated facts in issuing their judicial authority (opinion), (ruling). 

And that it was an error to rule that Cox had a history of such criminal actions when Cox was not allowed due process and constitutional rights regarding these allegations. Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ violated her Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights and Due Process of Law Rights by alleging Cox committed these criminal actions of which she had not been charged by a lower court nor the criminal justice system, as a matter of law. Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ prejudiced her substantial rights, and this was not a harmless error as Cox now faces extreme hate, prejudice, slander and defamation and has a other judicial proceedings that are now prejudiced against her. If Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believed Cox to have committed theses Criminal acts, they SHOULD go through due process of law. Judges are NOT above the law.

I Pray that this esteemed panel, this court, send a clear message to the Ninth Circuit, and essentially all Appellate Judges and all judges across our court system, that it is not ok, not ethical, not constitutional nor lawful to ad lib, make criminal allegations, introduce new case information into the appeal process, slander and defame litigants, and abuse the power of their process and esteemed role to retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists, and anti-corruption bloggers in every town in the United States and essential the world. The Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit ruling is known well, worldwide and is the most prominent case to date of a blogger making a court rule on whether a blogger has rights equal to a journalist when it comes to the First Amendment, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws and Free Speech Rights. 

This is a massive human rights and civil rights issue, as now all who expose corruption and break news, report on what is really happening in small towns, big cities and essential everywhere, have the same rights in the courtroom as does traditional journalists and the institutional press aKa big media. Therefore it is imperative that this ruling does not be tainted with giving those same traditional journalists of the institutional press, super powers to have that same blogger alienated, outcast, painted in false light, prejudiced in other court proceedings, and have the world at large believe them to be a criminal and therefore not taken serious that in which they are exposing or reporting on. This ruling that gave equality, seemed to have took it away in the very same ruling. Petition Cox has NEVER, not even once in her life, posted anything online with the intention of seeking a payment for a retraction. 

Cox has NEVER asked for money to remove anything she has posted online, and yet Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ are claiming, in a Ninth Circuit ruling that Cox has a “History” of doing such actions, seriously criminal, unconstitutional and unethical action. 

As if Cox has a pattern and history of illegal, unethical behavior, of which there is NO History or Pattern. If these judges are allowed to put these unsubstantiated, unadjudicated, extremely biased and prejudice criminal allegations into a ruling in a civil case, then this will chill the speech of those in the future wishing to, wanting, or trying to expose corruption in their area of expertise, town, or state.

In Truth Petitioner Cox has dedicated her life, lost everything and been under extreme threats, retaliation, and extreme prejudice for nearly a decade, all because she did the right thing and stood up for others, for strangers and used her internet marketing skills to give voice to the victims of corrupt detectives, county commissioners, judges, cops, politicians, real estate companies, banks, finance companies, and victims of human trafficking, pedophilia, rape, and severe abuse.
Cox was RULED guilty of a crime of which she was not on trial for, was not adjudicated for and was not under investigation for. A crime that was NOT a material factor in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox. 

It is not legal, due process, nor constitutional for these judges to have stated these false, unadjudicated allegations. Petitioner respectfully request that the Ninth Circuit Court amend its opinion to withhold the sentence that now says, Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech , N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. 

A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” could be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court. But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process. 

The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201. Adding this statement to the Obsidian v. Cox ruling dated January 17th, 2014 is Legally Flawed and Has Far-Reaching Consequences, and is thereby Warranting Review in This Case. This issue affects all who are reporting news, all citizen journalists, all victims of corruption at every level and all whistleblowers. 

If a Ninth Circuit panel can rule that any individual has committed crimes without that person having been investigated or given due process for those allegations, and use a New York Times article as evidence of those crimes, then this potentially affects every citizen in the United States and is a very important issue for all lawmakers, citizens, and the judicial process as a whole.
The Court should grant the petition. "  

Source of Crystal Cox Blogger Supreme Court Filing

Crystal Cox, Free Speech Case fighting to Equal rights of bloggers, Citizen Journalists, Whistleblowers as New York Times, Forbes and other traditional, mainstream media.

To Read the writ of certiorari Filing by Crystal Cox, Pro Se, Click Below

UCLA, Law Professor, Attorney Eugene Volokh 
Motion to Rehear Click Below

Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox; 

Supreme Court of the United States Filing;
Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731

No. 13-9731

Crystal Cox, Petitioner
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al.

Docketed: April 16, 2014

Lower Court: 
United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

  Case Nos.: (12-35238, 12-35319)
  Decision Date: January 17, 2014
  Rehearing Denied: March 5, 2014

Apr 8 2014 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and 
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. 
(Response due May 16, 2014)

Attorneys for Petitioner:
Crystal L. Cox P.O. Box 2027
Port Townsend, WA  98368
Party name: Crystal Cox

Crystal Cox on Why she Filed Motion to Rehear in the Ninth Circuit
(Playlist of 2, Audio OnlyCrystal Cox on Motion to Rehear)

Crystal Cox, Obsidian v. Cox Update March 12th, 2014

How Extortion Entered into the Obsidian Finance v. Crystal Cox Case, 
and a bit about the Summit Bankruptcy Case

Other Links for Updates

Crystal Cox First Amendment, Free Speech Case

 Crystal Cox Blogger; Crystal Cox First Amendment Case, 
Equality of Bloggers; Ninth Circuit Appeals WIN for ALL Citizen Journalists,
 Anti-Corruption Bloggers, and Whistleblowers

More on Obsidian Finance Group

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; 
Supreme Court of the United States Filing; 
Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731

You are the MEDIA folks. 
Start a Blog and REPORT the REAL News.

For More about the Crystal Cox Case

Archives on the Obsidian Finance Group vs. Blogger Crystal Cox Case.

Playlist on Tips on Exposing Corruption; Crystal Cox Blogger

the Story, Tidbits, and More, Crystal Cox Blogger talks about her Case