In Marc Randazza’s Recent Filing, Motion for Default, Case 16-01111-abl Doc 26 Entered 10/20/17, he claims that ONLY upon Volokh being interested in teaming up with him was he then “willing to accept the case”. Meaning the Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal. Yet Crystal Cox claims Randazza represented her before this and told others he was her attorney. Randazza states in earlies sworn documents a different version of his story, let’s take a look.
Page 38, Line 26-28 and Page 39 1-4, Case 16-01111-abl Doc 26, (Randazza Decl. ¶ 26) Says: “Only upon Mr. Volokh expressing an interest in teaming up on the case with him did Mr. Randazza decide that he was willing to accept the case. (Randazza Decl. ¶ 26).”
In this sworn statement (Randazza Decl. ¶ 26) Randazza claims he was only interested in representing me, Crystal Cox, with Volokh and only offered to represent me after this conversation. Even though, the only reason Volokh was talking to Randazza about me, Crystal Cox was Randazza told Volokh he represented Crystal Cox. And that he was brokering a deal with the Opposition in the Obsidian case, David Aman.
In this sworn statement (Randazza Decl. ¶ 26) Randazza claims he was only interested in representing me, Crystal Cox, with Volokh and only offered to represent me after this conversation. Even though, the only reason Volokh was talking to Randazza about me, Crystal Cox was Randazza told Volokh he represented Crystal Cox. And that he was brokering a deal with the Opposition in the Obsidian case, David Aman.
The statement is false, and it is making a false declaration to a Federal Court while knowing full well it is False as Randazza swore to different facts in Case 2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL Document 252 Filed 04/06/15, Exhibit 9, Marc Randazza’s sworn interrogatory answers.
So in Case 16-01111-abl Doc 26, Page 38, Line 26-28 and Page 39 1-4, we see RANDAZZA swearing that he ONLY agreed to Represent Cox after Volokh expressed interest to team up with him. We see below in a previous Sworn statement of Randazza that he was involved in representation BEFORE speaking with Volokh, talking strategy with Volokh, and only spoke with Volokh after he had already put in time and material into representation.
Interrogatory 21 Exhibit 9:
“Did you have phone conversations with Eugene Volokh and state that you represented Cox and discuss with him your strategy, or a deal you were trying to make with the opposition, Plaintiff’s attorney David Aman?”
“Did you have phone conversations with Eugene Volokh and state that you represented Cox and discuss with him your strategy, or a deal you were trying to make with the opposition, Plaintiff’s attorney David Aman?”
Randazza’s Sworn RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
"... Counterdefendant responds as follows:
Counterdefendant spoke with Eugene Volokh in December 2011.
Counterdefendant informed Volokh that if he was going to represent Cox, that Randazza would gladly bow out, and defer to Volokh to handle the case.
Volokh, however, said that he would prefer that Randazza co-counsel the case with him due to Volokh’s stated lack of litigation experience. Counterdefendant and Volokh discussed possible strategies that he and Volokh thought might be good ideas during that call.
Counterdefendant and Volokh both discussed the fact that Cox’s interests would be better served through settlement."
"... Counterdefendant responds as follows:
Counterdefendant spoke with Eugene Volokh in December 2011.
Counterdefendant informed Volokh that if he was going to represent Cox, that Randazza would gladly bow out, and defer to Volokh to handle the case.
Volokh, however, said that he would prefer that Randazza co-counsel the case with him due to Volokh’s stated lack of litigation experience. Counterdefendant and Volokh discussed possible strategies that he and Volokh thought might be good ideas during that call.
Counterdefendant and Volokh both discussed the fact that Cox’s interests would be better served through settlement."
What gave Marc Randazza a legal right to negotiate who gets to be my attorney with him, if he was not indeed my attorney, or acting as if he was my attorney?
Randazza and Volokh discussed strategy? About Me? They discussed that a settlement was in my, Crystal Cox’s, best interest?
A couple of guys deciding what was in my best interest and Randazza proceeding with steps to negotiate what was in my best interest when Randazza clearly and plainly knew that I want to appeal. I did NOT want to settle nor did I want some aggressive, asshole man to decide it would be better if I settled and push me to do what I did want to do, negotiate behind my back, and trick and deceive me by letting the deadline run out while he held himself out as my attorney so no one else would represent me, thereby blocking me from appealing. He did not know I had talked to Volokh when he tried to pull off this malicious scheme.
In Conclusion,
Page 38, Number 1-13 of Interrogatory 21 Exhibit 9, Case 2:12-cv-02040-JAD-PAL Document 252 Filed 04/06/15 is Marc J. Randazza’s SWORN statement that the Interrogatory Answers are true to the best of his knowledge, yet we see on Page 38, Line 26-28 and Page 39 1-4, Case 16-01111-abl Doc 26, (Randazza Decl. ¶ 26) that Marc Randazza swears to the a VERY different Answer.
“I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: October 20, 2017.
/s/ Marc J. Randazza
MARC J. RANDAZZA, ESQ.”
Dated: October 20, 2017.
/s/ Marc J. Randazza
MARC J. RANDAZZA, ESQ.”
So How Can Both be True under penalty of perjury?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.