LIAR, LIAR, Pants on Fire.
Marc Randazza tells WIPO that he "Served" me a WIPO Complaint when he did not. Marc Randazza emails me now and then and I certainly do not open attachments.
I was not served any documents, and Marc Randazza knows full well that I am not in Montana.
Marc Randazza was trying to "Trick" me, so that I would not respond to the WIPO Complaint. As he first filed the complaint with the CZECH Courts. Now Marc Randazza tells WIPO that I was notified of the Complaint Being Dropped which was not True.
I was not aware of it being dropped, as the Domain stayed LOCKED.
If the CZECH complaint was dropped, why did Godaddy keep the Domain Name LOCKED. Was this a Favor for Marc J. Randazza, above the Law Hypocrite Attorney ?
Marc Randazza Emailed me, Pro Se Defendent, Blogger Crystal L. Cox during the Obsidian V. Cox case filings and told me that he will NOT Open Attachments Regarding Legal Documents from Pro Se Defendant Crystal L. Cox, this after Marc Randazza was Subpoened in Obsidian V. Cox, I am Pro Se in that Matter, and after Marc Randazza had offered to represent me. He refused to open attachments in emails regarding legal filings involving him. Here is that Email
Marc Randazza Emails Pro Se Blogger Crystal Cox that he will NOT Open Attachments Regarding Legal Documents, after he was Subpoened in Obsidian V. Cox
Now it seems as though he thinks I am to open attachments from him. I do NOT open attachments from Randazza Legal Group at the Request of Attorney Marc Randazza. Just one more Hypocritical Rabid Randazza Move.
Showing posts with label Czech Arbitration Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Czech Arbitration Court. Show all posts
Sep 12, 2012
Sep 9, 2012
eMail Sent to me Last Summer Regarding Marc Randazza and the Czech Arbitration Court regarding the underhanded tricks of Attorney Marc Randazza.
""Dear Crystal,
You and I share a common enemy. I hate that copyright troll shit Marc Randazza. I saw that he filed a domain name dispute against you in the CAC. I am pretty sure that the connection he has with the Czech Republic is that his wife is Czech. Since he obviously has some sort of criminal ties, I wouldn't be shocked if it was that far-reaching.
At any rate, I've dealt with these kinds of things before, and I thought I would offer you a bit of help since I know first-hand how expensive these things can get. I got a copy of his complaint, and I did a lot of research for you and put together a response for you to argue to the CAC that the complaint against you should be dismissed. I hope that it helps you out. Good luck to you.
Introduction
Complainant Marc Randazza has improperly filed a UDRP complaint with the Czech Arbitration Center. Jurisdiction in the CAC is not proper because neither the respondent nor the complainant have ties to the Czech Republic. In addition, Complainant Marc Randazza has ties to illegal activity and Ms. Cox has a right to freedom of speech.
Facts
In late 2011, complainant Marc Randazza approached respondent, Ms. Crystal Cox, about representing her in an appeal of a judgment against her in the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Randazza then went behind Ms. Cox's back and began speaking with the opposing party without Ms. Cox's permission, and Ms. Cox terminated their professional relationship. Cox has absolute evidence that Randazza conspired to set her up in a criminal case and that he conspired with the corrupt judge in the case so that her rights would be violated. For this reason alone, the complaint must be dismissed.
Randazza has known ties to organized crime, is a criminal, and is suspected of participation in a number of unethical acts. He has been a representative of the pornography industry, thus demonstrating a lack of moral character. In his representation of pornographers, he has set up Gay teenagers for suicide, has extorted millions of dollars from innocent parties, and uses his law license as a tool of cyber bullying, terrorism, and criminal activity. This prosecution is the latest in a long line of his incredible acts of moral turpitude and crime. Not only should the complaint be denied, but the Czech Arbitration Court should impose sanctions upon Randazza under Czech Code which provides for sanctions of attorneys who bring frivolous actions against innocent parties.
1. Elliot Bernstein is not a proper party to this case.
Elliot Bernstein is not a proper party to this case, and for that reason the claims should be denied. Bernstein is the registered name owner of two of the domain names, but as the Court can see, Cox is the publisher of them. BUT, the actual case has to be brought against the real name holder or the party in interest, but it is up to the Complainant to make that distinction. Under ICANN Rule 3.7.7.3, Randazza could have simply asked Bernstein to reveal the underlying owner, and Bernstein would have done so. But, since Randazza was too lazy to do this, his complaint has a fatal flaw that can never be overcome.
2. Jurisdiction in the Czech Republic is not proper because neither party meets the sufficient minimal contacts test.
Due Process requires that, in order for a forum to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that "he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend „traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.‟" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310, 316 (1945). Because neither Randazza nor Cox reside in the Czech Republic, this court has no jurisdiction over either of them, nor over this dispute.
The Supreme Court of the United States (A country of which both Randazza and Cox are citizens) has held that before a court has the power to exert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that defendant must "Purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958).
The minimum contacts constitutional requirement serves two objectives: "[I]t protects against the burdens of litigation in a distant or inconvenient forum" unless the defendants contacts to the forum state make it just and fair to force him or her to defend a cause of action, and "it acts to ensure that the states, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as co-equal sovereigns in a federal system." See World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980).
Plaintiff Randazza seeks exactly what the due process clause prohibits, a discard of any notion of due process in order to punitively subject the Cox to litigation in an inconvenient forum.
DUE PROCESS AND FIRST AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF CYBER JOURNALISM
As noted above, the Plaintiff's position demonstrates a a desire to continue unethical behavior to set up the Defendant. Randazza might thing that due process is not due to Cox, this is not the case in real life or on the Internet. Using technology to lead to "the eventual demise on all restrictions on the personal jurisdiction" can not stand. See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 250-51 (1958) (citing Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877), and International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). To determine jurisdiction in the Internet age, the Court must recognize that the Internet is not restricted by distance or state boundaries. See, e.g., Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 851 (1997) ("Cyberspace is accessible to anyone, located anywhere, with an Internet connection").
The world wide nature of Internet use makes it a unique mode of communication unlike newspapers, mail, radio, television, and other media. See Millennium Enterprises, Inc. v. Millennium Music, LP, 33 F.Supp.2d 907, 914(D. Or. 1999). Speech on the Internet targets no jurisdiction in particular and everyone in any geographic location. See Id.
Given Internet, and the special position granted to matters of free speech, the Court must recognize that this case touches upon time-worn legal issues in a manner not thoroughly resolved the existing law. See generally, David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 STAN. L. REV. 1367, 1370 (1996) ("Cyberspace has no territorial based boundaries, because of the cost and speed of message transmission on the Internet is almost entirely independent of physical location").
THE "EFFECTS TEST"
The predominant pre-internet test for jurisdiction, occasionally relied upon in the internet context is the effects test as established by Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). In this case, an editor and a writer for the National Enquirer, both residents of Florida, were sued in California for libel arising out of an article published in The Enquirer about Shirley Jones, a resident of California. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The United States Supreme Court upheld the determination of personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they had "expressly aimed" their conduct towards California. Id. at 789.
If this court were to accept a simplistic interpretation of Calder in an Internet context, a nonresident defendant would always be subject to jurisdiction in the Czech Arbitration Court simply because the plaintiff's wanted to bring a claim in the Czech Arbitration Court. See, e.g., Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec.
THE "ZIPPO TEST"
Many courts have taken notice of the unique qualities of the Internet when making decisions regarding personal jurisdiction. The most commonly used approach to determine whether purposeful availment exists in a Website context is the so-called "Zippo Test." This Test was originally articulated in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997).
At the opposite end of the spectrum are simple passive Websites which are merely accessible by users in all jurisdictions. These passive Websites do little more than make information available to any who may be interested in receiving the information and do not create sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction to attach. See Zippo at 1124 (citing Bensusan Rest Corp. v. King, 937 F.Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). See also Lofton v. Turbine Design, Inc., 100 F.Supp.2d 404, 409 (ND Miss. 2000) (publication of allegedly defamatory material on a website, under the due process clause, does not create sufficient contacts with the forum state since the site was passive and not designed to attract business); Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (web page accessible in the forum state, causing potential harm in the forum state does not create liability in the forum state).
In the middle are interactive Websites where users can exchange information with the host site. In all but the clearest cases, an evaluating court must make a finding that the defendant is somehow expressly targeting internet users in the forum state and not just making itself accessible to everyone. Mere interactivity, without more does not slide the scale toward establishment of minimum contacts.
The purposeful availment requirement is established if the defendant purposefully creates sufficient minimum contacts with Florida in order to create "a substantial connection" with this state. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76. The whole constitutional reason for "purposeful availment" requirement is so that the decisions of all states have some measure of predictability and notice that they may be subject to suit in a foreign jurisdiction. See World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, at 297 (1980). If citizens believe that the risks of litigation in a fora are too likely, citizens of other states may sever any connection to unfavorable forum states. Id. at 297.
As discussed above, since Cox is technologically unable to limit where in the world her cyber-journalism and Citizen Journalism would be accessed, it is a pre-internet mode of thinking that the defendant could have severed connection to the Czech Republic to avoid jurisdiction here. This is simply illogical in the context of allowing free-expression to thrive without unreasonably and unlawfully chilling all speech on the internet.
Neither Ms. Cox nor attorney Randazza have the minimum contacts necessary to meet the test described in International Shoe. Attorney Randazza currently lives in Nevada, and his law firm is in Florida (and how that is ethical is uncertain). Ms. Cox is a resident of Montana. Neither of them has a connection to the Czech Republic, and Ms. Cox is certainly not "at home" in the Czech Republic. Therefore, the Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes does not have personal jurisdiction over either party, and filing the complaint in the Czech Republic was not proper.
2. Because Complainant Marc Randazza has ties to illegal activity, he cannot claim legitimate rights to his name as a famous mark.
The doctrine that plaintiff must come into a court of equity with "clean hands" is a reflection of the equitable nature of trademark law. A plaintiff who requests the assistance of a court of equity must not himself be guilty of inequitable conduct. Furthermore, keeping in mind the equitable nature of trademark rights, "misuse" of those rights is a recognized defense.
In his complaint, Randazza claims that he has shown that his name is a trademark because he is a public individual. HE IS a public individual, and thus his name might function as a trademark, but his name is also associated with pornography, criminality, slander, and libel. Therefore, under New York Times v. Sullivan, in order for him to win this case, he must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Cox acted with actual malice, knowing that her actions could constitute a violation of law. Since her actions had no violation of law in them, there is no possibility that Randazza can ever prevail over her under this standard.
Further, because of Randazza's obvious ties with the mafia, he is not using his name in a legitimate manner. Ms. Cox is in fear for her life because of Randazza's ties with the Mafia. Additionally, he has sent out a ring of bloggers and stalkers to harass Ms. Cox constantly. Most notably, someone connected to Randazza threatened to break Ms. Cox's legs in a conspiracy with the well-known criminal, Kenneth White, who is a blatant apologist for Randazza. Therefore, Randazza is not making a legitimate use of his name and should not be entitled to rights to it.
Common antitrust misuse defense alleges that the suit brought by plaintiff was brought in bad faith as part of an attempt to monopolize or restrain trade or to shut down or set up an innocent party. A Plaintiff may try to combat this defense by claiming immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Under this doctrine, the plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts, which immunizes him from antitrust liability based on his filing suit against defendant.
The immunity conferred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, however, is not absolute. There is an exception to the doctrine known as the "sham exception": if the lawsuit is a mere sham brought to harass a competitor and damage competition, it will not qualify for Noerr-Pennington immunity. Furthermore, a "no sham" ruling does not bar a later malicious prosecution suit based on false testimony not addressed by the court in the initial "no sham" ruling.
The meaning of the "sham" exception was clarified by the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in the Columbia Pictures case. There, the Court set out a two-part test for sham:
1. the lawsuit must be objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable litigant would realistically expect success on the merits; and
2. the baseless lawsuit must conceal an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor through the use of government process.
Randazza is clearly trying to interefere directly with Cox and her business relationships. As has been demonstrated by Cox on many occasions, Randazza is a criminal minded and unethical attorney. He has conspired to set her up for extortion. He has worked with her enemies while her attorney and violated the sacred oath of attorney client privilege! How can anything ever be as unclean handed and underhanded, and
3. Because the European Union recognizes freedom of speech, Marc Randazza should not be allowed to take the Disputed Domain Name from Ms. Cox.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Article 11 provides that "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." and "2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected."
Respondent Ms. Cox is an investigative journalist who has made it her life's work to provide truthful information to the public about individuals who have acted improperly. She has a number of successful blogs where she disseminates this information to the public. She is a whistleblower and an agent of the truth. COX IS A MINISTER, and thus NOT SUBJECT TO SUIT.
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought against Ministers, as does the Czech Constitution and the United Nations treaty on civil rights.
Government interference with a Minister is an impermissible mixture of church and state. See Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U. S. 94; Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich,426 U. S. 696. Pp. 10-12.
(c) Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other employment discrimination laws, Courts find that suits against Ministers on matters of religious conviction are can not be maintained. The First Amendment itself, gives special solicitude to the rights of religious clergy members, of which Cox is obviously one (the domains are owned by REVEREND Crystal Cox!)
Because Cox is a legitimate minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of this claim. The ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation.
Conclusion
This court should dismiss the complaint because Randazza made an error about the parties, jurisdiction is not proper in the Czech Republic, Randazza is involved with illegal activity, and Ms. Cox has a right to freedom of speech, Cox is a religious minister and thus immune from suit."
You and I share a common enemy. I hate that copyright troll shit Marc Randazza. I saw that he filed a domain name dispute against you in the CAC. I am pretty sure that the connection he has with the Czech Republic is that his wife is Czech. Since he obviously has some sort of criminal ties, I wouldn't be shocked if it was that far-reaching.
At any rate, I've dealt with these kinds of things before, and I thought I would offer you a bit of help since I know first-hand how expensive these things can get. I got a copy of his complaint, and I did a lot of research for you and put together a response for you to argue to the CAC that the complaint against you should be dismissed. I hope that it helps you out. Good luck to you.
Introduction
Complainant Marc Randazza has improperly filed a UDRP complaint with the Czech Arbitration Center. Jurisdiction in the CAC is not proper because neither the respondent nor the complainant have ties to the Czech Republic. In addition, Complainant Marc Randazza has ties to illegal activity and Ms. Cox has a right to freedom of speech.
Facts
In late 2011, complainant Marc Randazza approached respondent, Ms. Crystal Cox, about representing her in an appeal of a judgment against her in the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Randazza then went behind Ms. Cox's back and began speaking with the opposing party without Ms. Cox's permission, and Ms. Cox terminated their professional relationship. Cox has absolute evidence that Randazza conspired to set her up in a criminal case and that he conspired with the corrupt judge in the case so that her rights would be violated. For this reason alone, the complaint must be dismissed.
Randazza has known ties to organized crime, is a criminal, and is suspected of participation in a number of unethical acts. He has been a representative of the pornography industry, thus demonstrating a lack of moral character. In his representation of pornographers, he has set up Gay teenagers for suicide, has extorted millions of dollars from innocent parties, and uses his law license as a tool of cyber bullying, terrorism, and criminal activity. This prosecution is the latest in a long line of his incredible acts of moral turpitude and crime. Not only should the complaint be denied, but the Czech Arbitration Court should impose sanctions upon Randazza under Czech Code which provides for sanctions of attorneys who bring frivolous actions against innocent parties.
1. Elliot Bernstein is not a proper party to this case.
Elliot Bernstein is not a proper party to this case, and for that reason the claims should be denied. Bernstein is the registered name owner of two of the domain names, but as the Court can see, Cox is the publisher of them. BUT, the actual case has to be brought against the real name holder or the party in interest, but it is up to the Complainant to make that distinction. Under ICANN Rule 3.7.7.3, Randazza could have simply asked Bernstein to reveal the underlying owner, and Bernstein would have done so. But, since Randazza was too lazy to do this, his complaint has a fatal flaw that can never be overcome.
2. Jurisdiction in the Czech Republic is not proper because neither party meets the sufficient minimal contacts test.
Due Process requires that, in order for a forum to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that "he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend „traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.‟" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310, 316 (1945). Because neither Randazza nor Cox reside in the Czech Republic, this court has no jurisdiction over either of them, nor over this dispute.
The Supreme Court of the United States (A country of which both Randazza and Cox are citizens) has held that before a court has the power to exert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that defendant must "Purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958).
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires certain "minimum contacts" between a nonresident defendant and the forum state in order that "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," are not offended. See International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). This "Purposeful Availment Test" examines whether the defendant's voluntary actions reasonably and foreseeably create liability in the forum state. See World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). This Test protects a defendant from being haled into another state (or country's) court unjustly. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76 (citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984); World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 299 (1980)).
The minimum contacts constitutional requirement serves two objectives: "[I]t protects against the burdens of litigation in a distant or inconvenient forum" unless the defendants contacts to the forum state make it just and fair to force him or her to defend a cause of action, and "it acts to ensure that the states, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as co-equal sovereigns in a federal system." See World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980).
Plaintiff Randazza seeks exactly what the due process clause prohibits, a discard of any notion of due process in order to punitively subject the Cox to litigation in an inconvenient forum.
DUE PROCESS AND FIRST AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF CYBER JOURNALISM
As noted above, the Plaintiff's position demonstrates a a desire to continue unethical behavior to set up the Defendant. Randazza might thing that due process is not due to Cox, this is not the case in real life or on the Internet. Using technology to lead to "the eventual demise on all restrictions on the personal jurisdiction" can not stand. See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 250-51 (1958) (citing Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877), and International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). To determine jurisdiction in the Internet age, the Court must recognize that the Internet is not restricted by distance or state boundaries. See, e.g., Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 851 (1997) ("Cyberspace is accessible to anyone, located anywhere, with an Internet connection").
The world wide nature of Internet use makes it a unique mode of communication unlike newspapers, mail, radio, television, and other media. See Millennium Enterprises, Inc. v. Millennium Music, LP, 33 F.Supp.2d 907, 914(D. Or. 1999). Speech on the Internet targets no jurisdiction in particular and everyone in any geographic location. See Id.
Given Internet, and the special position granted to matters of free speech, the Court must recognize that this case touches upon time-worn legal issues in a manner not thoroughly resolved the existing law. See generally, David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 STAN. L. REV. 1367, 1370 (1996) ("Cyberspace has no territorial based boundaries, because of the cost and speed of message transmission on the Internet is almost entirely independent of physical location").
Even if an internet speaker sought to avoid jurisdiction in a certain country, there is little to nothing that he could do in order to limit his Website's accessibility in a selected state where the publisher may wish to avoid jurisdiction. See Geoffrey Nunberg, The Internet Filter Farce, found at http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/1/nunberg-g.html. (January 1, 2001) (Discussing the limitations and failures of filtering technology) (last visited, October 17, 2004).
THE "EFFECTS TEST"
The predominant pre-internet test for jurisdiction, occasionally relied upon in the internet context is the effects test as established by Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). In this case, an editor and a writer for the National Enquirer, both residents of Florida, were sued in California for libel arising out of an article published in The Enquirer about Shirley Jones, a resident of California. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The United States Supreme Court upheld the determination of personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they had "expressly aimed" their conduct towards California. Id. at 789.
Relying on the fact that The Enquirer had its largest circulation in California, distributing over 600,000 copies of its publication in that state, the court noted that the defendants knew the harm of their allegedly tortuous activity would be felt there. Id. at 789-90.
A key distinction in the case at bar is that the The National Enquirer was availing itself of the privilege of operating in California, as it shipped 600,000 copies into that state.
A key distinction in the case at bar is that the The National Enquirer was availing itself of the privilege of operating in California, as it shipped 600,000 copies into that state.
The National Enquirer purposefully availed itself of the business of doing business in California when it delivered both subscriptions and newsstand copies with a great degree of regularity into that state. If The National Enquirer wished to avoid the likelihood of being haled into a California court, the publication could simply cease publication in California, but its publication in all 49 other states would be unfettered.
If this court were to accept a simplistic interpretation of Calder in an Internet context, a nonresident defendant would always be subject to jurisdiction in the Czech Arbitration Court simply because the plaintiff's wanted to bring a claim in the Czech Arbitration Court. See, e.g., Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec.
Power Co., 253 F.3d 865 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, given the nature of the internet, the only way to avoid jurisdiction in any country would be to not speak on matters critical of any entity in any other country - an end result that would chill free speech to an extent impermissible by the First Amendment. This would, in effect, result in this Court licensing "one side of a debate to fight free style, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules." See R.A.V. v. City of Saint Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
This is a position which is counter to the protections of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment. See Id. Accordingly, if this court chose to apply the effects test, this case should most certainly fail due to the strong distinction between the print medium evaluated in Calder and the internet medium in the case at bar.
THE "ZIPPO TEST"
Many courts have taken notice of the unique qualities of the Internet when making decisions regarding personal jurisdiction. The most commonly used approach to determine whether purposeful availment exists in a Website context is the so-called "Zippo Test." This Test was originally articulated in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997).
In this case, the Western District of Pennsylvania concluded that "the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet." Id. at 1124.
The court described a sliding continuum for the evaluation of whether jurisdiction should attach. At one end of this spectrum are defendants that clearly conduct business over the Internet. For example, a defendant that may knowingly and repeatedly transmit computer files over the Internet into a forum state, thus creating jurisdiction. Id. (citing Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996).
This test has been met with extensive approval in World wide, but especially in Florida, where Randazza's law firm is based out of. See, e.g., Miller v. Berman, 289 F.Supp.2d 1327 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (applying the Zippo Test and rejecting jurisdiction in circumstances where the defendant published a web page accessible in Florida, but did not regularly conduct business in the State of Florida); Hartoy, Inc., v. Thompson, 2003 WL 21468079 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (unpublished opinion recognizing and applying the Zippo Test); Miami Breakers Soccer Club, Inc., v. Women's United Soccer Ass'n, 140 F.Supp.2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (applying the Zippo Test to a passive Website and rejecting jurisdiction); J.B. Oxford Holdings, Inc., v. Net Trade, Inc., 76 F.Supp.2d 1363, (S.D. Fla. 1999) (applying the Zippo Test and rejecting jurisdiction over a Website that provided the ability for readers to email questions to the defendant, download demonstrations from the defendant, and receive free information about day trading from the defendant).
At the opposite end of the spectrum are simple passive Websites which are merely accessible by users in all jurisdictions. These passive Websites do little more than make information available to any who may be interested in receiving the information and do not create sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction to attach. See Zippo at 1124 (citing Bensusan Rest Corp. v. King, 937 F.Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). See also Lofton v. Turbine Design, Inc., 100 F.Supp.2d 404, 409 (ND Miss. 2000) (publication of allegedly defamatory material on a website, under the due process clause, does not create sufficient contacts with the forum state since the site was passive and not designed to attract business); Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (web page accessible in the forum state, causing potential harm in the forum state does not create liability in the forum state).
In the middle are interactive Websites where users can exchange information with the host site. In all but the clearest cases, an evaluating court must make a finding that the defendant is somehow expressly targeting internet users in the forum state and not just making itself accessible to everyone. Mere interactivity, without more does not slide the scale toward establishment of minimum contacts.
See, e.g., Bancroft and Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (Interactivity is insufficient by itself, there must be "express aiming" at forum state); Hy Cite Corp. v. BadBusinessBureau.com, LLC, 297 F.Supp.2d 1154, 1161 (W.D. Wis. 2004). "However the ultimate question remains the same, that is, whether the defendant's contacts with the state are of such quality and nature such that it could reasonably expect to be haled into the courts of the forum state." Id. It is clear that the law does not allow jurisdiction over Crystal Cox in the Czech Republic! Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997)).
The purposeful availment requirement is established if the defendant purposefully creates sufficient minimum contacts with Florida in order to create "a substantial connection" with this state. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76. The whole constitutional reason for "purposeful availment" requirement is so that the decisions of all states have some measure of predictability and notice that they may be subject to suit in a foreign jurisdiction. See World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, at 297 (1980). If citizens believe that the risks of litigation in a fora are too likely, citizens of other states may sever any connection to unfavorable forum states. Id. at 297.
As discussed above, since Cox is technologically unable to limit where in the world her cyber-journalism and Citizen Journalism would be accessed, it is a pre-internet mode of thinking that the defendant could have severed connection to the Czech Republic to avoid jurisdiction here. This is simply illogical in the context of allowing free-expression to thrive without unreasonably and unlawfully chilling all speech on the internet.
Neither Ms. Cox nor attorney Randazza have the minimum contacts necessary to meet the test described in International Shoe. Attorney Randazza currently lives in Nevada, and his law firm is in Florida (and how that is ethical is uncertain). Ms. Cox is a resident of Montana. Neither of them has a connection to the Czech Republic, and Ms. Cox is certainly not "at home" in the Czech Republic. Therefore, the Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes does not have personal jurisdiction over either party, and filing the complaint in the Czech Republic was not proper.
2. Because Complainant Marc Randazza has ties to illegal activity, he cannot claim legitimate rights to his name as a famous mark.
The doctrine that plaintiff must come into a court of equity with "clean hands" is a reflection of the equitable nature of trademark law. A plaintiff who requests the assistance of a court of equity must not himself be guilty of inequitable conduct. Furthermore, keeping in mind the equitable nature of trademark rights, "misuse" of those rights is a recognized defense.
Misuse includes activities that may themselves be the basis of a counterclaim, for example, enforcement of a fraudulently obtained registration, and use in violation of other laws. However, at least one court has stated that trademark misuse cannot be used affirmatively.
In his complaint, Randazza claims that he has shown that his name is a trademark because he is a public individual. HE IS a public individual, and thus his name might function as a trademark, but his name is also associated with pornography, criminality, slander, and libel. Therefore, under New York Times v. Sullivan, in order for him to win this case, he must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Cox acted with actual malice, knowing that her actions could constitute a violation of law. Since her actions had no violation of law in them, there is no possibility that Randazza can ever prevail over her under this standard.
Further, because of Randazza's obvious ties with the mafia, he is not using his name in a legitimate manner. Ms. Cox is in fear for her life because of Randazza's ties with the Mafia. Additionally, he has sent out a ring of bloggers and stalkers to harass Ms. Cox constantly. Most notably, someone connected to Randazza threatened to break Ms. Cox's legs in a conspiracy with the well-known criminal, Kenneth White, who is a blatant apologist for Randazza. Therefore, Randazza is not making a legitimate use of his name and should not be entitled to rights to it.
Common antitrust misuse defense alleges that the suit brought by plaintiff was brought in bad faith as part of an attempt to monopolize or restrain trade or to shut down or set up an innocent party. A Plaintiff may try to combat this defense by claiming immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Under this doctrine, the plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts, which immunizes him from antitrust liability based on his filing suit against defendant.
The immunity conferred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, however, is not absolute. There is an exception to the doctrine known as the "sham exception": if the lawsuit is a mere sham brought to harass a competitor and damage competition, it will not qualify for Noerr-Pennington immunity. Furthermore, a "no sham" ruling does not bar a later malicious prosecution suit based on false testimony not addressed by the court in the initial "no sham" ruling.
The meaning of the "sham" exception was clarified by the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in the Columbia Pictures case. There, the Court set out a two-part test for sham:
1. the lawsuit must be objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable litigant would realistically expect success on the merits; and
2. the baseless lawsuit must conceal an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor through the use of government process.
Randazza is clearly trying to interefere directly with Cox and her business relationships. As has been demonstrated by Cox on many occasions, Randazza is a criminal minded and unethical attorney. He has conspired to set her up for extortion. He has worked with her enemies while her attorney and violated the sacred oath of attorney client privilege! How can anything ever be as unclean handed and underhanded, and
3. Because the European Union recognizes freedom of speech, Marc Randazza should not be allowed to take the Disputed Domain Name from Ms. Cox.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Article 11 provides that "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." and "2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected."
Further, the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises." This language is similar to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Respondent Ms. Cox is an investigative journalist who has made it her life's work to provide truthful information to the public about individuals who have acted improperly. She has a number of successful blogs where she disseminates this information to the public. She is a whistleblower and an agent of the truth. COX IS A MINISTER, and thus NOT SUBJECT TO SUIT.
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought against Ministers, as does the Czech Constitution and the United Nations treaty on civil rights.
Government interference with a Minister is an impermissible mixture of church and state. See Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U. S. 94; Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich,426 U. S. 696. Pp. 10-12.
(c) Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other employment discrimination laws, Courts find that suits against Ministers on matters of religious conviction are can not be maintained. The First Amendment itself, gives special solicitude to the rights of religious clergy members, of which Cox is obviously one (the domains are owned by REVEREND Crystal Cox!)
Because Cox is a legitimate minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of this claim. The ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation.
Conclusion
This court should dismiss the complaint because Randazza made an error about the parties, jurisdiction is not proper in the Czech Republic, Randazza is involved with illegal activity, and Ms. Cox has a right to freedom of speech, Cox is a religious minister and thus immune from suit."
Email Send in from a Fan
Sep 7, 2012
Marc Randazza is an Asshole and a Thug plain and simple.
Waaaa Waaa ( Don't Be Alarmed this is a Parody, and not really Marc Randazza Speaking.. )
Waaaa UDRP please paddle Crystal Cox on the Ass and send her to her room. I demand that you ground Crystal Cox and tie her hands to the bed so she can't buy domain names with Marc Randazza in the name.
*******
I have every legal right to Make Fun of and to EXPOSE Marc Randazza. Yet Marc Randazza keeps using the UDRP system, the court system, Forbes, the New York Times and many lawyer friends and bloggers to keep attacking me simply because I am exercising my right to Free Speech in Exposing the whiny hypocrite Marc Randazza.
Remember now Marc Randazza has filed a protective order in a Domain Name Dispute, Filed a UDRP complaint.. where ever he can it seems.. And continues to watch my every move when it comes to "Marc Randazza". This attorney acts as if Free Speech is his game, yet too dumb to buy MarcRandazza.com, he punishes those smarter then him by constant attacks.
I had markrandazza.blogspot.com in the top 10 and Marc Randazza, in the name of Free Speech got his cronies to remove the name, now Marc Randazza.com is in the top of the search so Marc Randazza wants it too... oh and whatever else the lying asshole can get. He is above the law, has no ethics and violates the rights of his clients and potential clients.
Expose Marc Randazza
eMail your Tip to me
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com
Marc Randazza is an Asshole and a Thug plain and simple.
Waaaa UDRP please paddle Crystal Cox on the Ass and send her to her room. I demand that you ground Crystal Cox and tie her hands to the bed so she can't buy domain names with Marc Randazza in the name.
*******
I have every legal right to Make Fun of and to EXPOSE Marc Randazza. Yet Marc Randazza keeps using the UDRP system, the court system, Forbes, the New York Times and many lawyer friends and bloggers to keep attacking me simply because I am exercising my right to Free Speech in Exposing the whiny hypocrite Marc Randazza.
Remember now Marc Randazza has filed a protective order in a Domain Name Dispute, Filed a UDRP complaint.. where ever he can it seems.. And continues to watch my every move when it comes to "Marc Randazza". This attorney acts as if Free Speech is his game, yet too dumb to buy MarcRandazza.com, he punishes those smarter then him by constant attacks.
I had markrandazza.blogspot.com in the top 10 and Marc Randazza, in the name of Free Speech got his cronies to remove the name, now Marc Randazza.com is in the top of the search so Marc Randazza wants it too... oh and whatever else the lying asshole can get. He is above the law, has no ethics and violates the rights of his clients and potential clients.
Expose Marc Randazza
eMail your Tip to me
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com
Marc Randazza is an Asshole and a Thug plain and simple.
Sep 5, 2012
Marc J. Randazza Responds to Matthew A. Kaplan, Esq. regarding Glen Beck WIPO Dispute. Get your Hip Waders, YOU will Need Em'
Marc J. Randazza Responds to Glen Beck WIPO
Hmm.. do you see anything possibly hypocritical in all this ?
Marc Randazza sure does not believe I have these same rights. Guess I should hire Marc Randazza to represent me against Marc Randazza, ya I know I am sooo Funny.
Let's take a look at a few things that Attorney Marc Randazza has to say when it comes to Domain Name owners rights in cases that do not involve domain names with the name Marc Randazza in the Domain Name. Ready ?
You may want to have a shovel handy and wear hip waders.
" View 1 states: “The right to criticize does not extend to registering a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the owner’s registered trademark or conveys an association with the mark.”
View 2 states: “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.”
Naturally, View 2 is the prevailing view of American panelists and panels that apply American law to UDRP proceedings. View 1 seems to be more popular with international panelists and panels that apply European law.
Unfortunately, given that UDRP decisions regularly incorporate international legal principles, this case could be assigned to a foreign panelist or to an American panelist who applies transnational principles. I personally would find it distressing if the panel were to make a decision that completely disregards the U.S. Constitution in favor of a foreign perspective that adopts View 1."
Hmmm.. Ok so Marc Randazza, First Amendment Attorney and self proclaimed Free Speech Advocate files a domain name dispute in a Czech Arbitration Court ( a foreign panelist) and it sure looks to me that Marc Randazza did this in order to go directly AGAINST the U.S. Constitution.
Marc Randazza tries to claim I have made money from his not so famous alleged brand. Yet that is simply not true, I have made no money from that domain name and have in fact lost money. I still own the name now because Marc Randazza had Godaddy lock the name, otherwise I would have sold it for 12 Million Dollars.. maybe if I win the right to keep the name I can sell it to a porn connoisseur ( breath, it's Parody ).
The use of MarcRandazza.com is FAIR and non-commercial and Marc Randazza knows it.. he is grasping at straws to redeem his very bad name .. that he claims is his good name and boy is Marc Randazza lying constantly.
In the Glen Beck Case Marc Randazza says, "I personally would find it distressing if the panel were to make a decision that completely disregards the U.S. Constitution in favor of a foreign perspective that adopts View 1."
YET it's not so distressing when the Constitution is disregarded to protect the ego of whiny baby attorney Marc Randazza.
In the Glen Beck Case Documents, Marc Randazza goes on to say, "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. Beck’s complaint would be humiliatingly doomed as well in a U.S. court. "
Hmmm.. so Marc Randazza, Hypocritical Attorney finds it puzzling that a man would try and get a domain name with his name in it, yet Marc Randazza sure is not seeming puzzled when the domain name has Marc Randazza in it. Surely a defamation claim would be humiliating to dumb ol' Marc Randazza.
And it all seems so obvious now as to why Marc Randazza did not file in a U.S. Court.
The above document is so Full of Shit, as Marc Randazza seems to be taking the opposite side of it all now... poor baby.. afraid of a girl buying a domain name and has to file a protective order.. IN HIS HOUR OF TERROR !!! ( as Seen on Nationally Syndicated NPR )
Hypocrite Marc Randazza 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."
So is Marc Randazza claiming to be a First Amendment Champion. REALLY ? Is that what your Going with Dipshit ?
Well, Folks Marc Randazza is certainly NOT a First Amendment Champion.
Marc Randazza got a whole lot of my blogs shut down because he did not like me complaining about Marc J. Randazza. Marc Randazza filed a protective order against me.
Marc Randazza threatened me in private emails on making him an enemy. Marc Randazza gathered a lynch mob, lying about my motives and attacked me online, in my my post office mail, my email, and in world wide blogs and forums.
Marc Randazza lied to a Forbes reporter and painted me in false light as if I had attacked a child. Marc Randazza accused me of extortion when Marc Randazza himself offered to buy the domain name and I said NO.
Marc Randazza has been on a rant for nearly a year now just because of a domain name. And all this to suppress my Free Speech rights, my First Amendment rights and in essence has violated the rights of all bloggers and citizens and has so far set some pretty bad precedence.
Marc Randazza is the one that "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 " .
Marc Randazza wanted to violated my constitutional rights, therefore Marc Randazza brought this "ACTION" before an international domain name arbitration panel. "Of Course" I "Levy no Critique" at Marc Randazza for "seeking to vindicate his perceived rights in this forum".
Marc Randazza, Alleged First Amendment Rights Attorney and Advocate of Free Speech, certainly seems to be making REAL First Amendment Champions, such as myself, CRINGE.
A Few more quotes from the document above as Marc Randazza blathers on, in defense of his client, yet now in a hypocritical rant fights for the exact opposite against Blogger, Super Hero Crystal L. Cox, the "REAL" Free Speech Champion.
"We are certain that despite our disagreement with Mr. Beck’s 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."
Drama, Drama, Drama Queen !!!
"I am certain that neither party wishes to see First Amendment rights subordinated to international trademark principles, thus unwittingly proving Mr. Beck’s 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. "
Don't you throw up a bit when hypocritical, down right EVIL lying lawyers such as Marc John Randazza, sign their Blather and Yammering with "Sincerely," Marc John Randazza
Blah.. Blah.. Blah..
Hmm.. do you see anything possibly hypocritical in all this ?
Marc Randazza sure does not believe I have these same rights. Guess I should hire Marc Randazza to represent me against Marc Randazza, ya I know I am sooo Funny.
Let's take a look at a few things that Attorney Marc Randazza has to say when it comes to Domain Name owners rights in cases that do not involve domain names with the name Marc Randazza in the Domain Name. Ready ?
You may want to have a shovel handy and wear hip waders.
" View 1 states: “The right to criticize does not extend to registering a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the owner’s registered trademark or conveys an association with the mark.”
View 2 states: “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.”
Naturally, View 2 is the prevailing view of American panelists and panels that apply American law to UDRP proceedings. View 1 seems to be more popular with international panelists and panels that apply European law.
Unfortunately, given that UDRP decisions regularly incorporate international legal principles, this case could be assigned to a foreign panelist or to an American panelist who applies transnational principles. I personally would find it distressing if the panel were to make a decision that completely disregards the U.S. Constitution in favor of a foreign perspective that adopts View 1."
Hmmm.. Ok so Marc Randazza, First Amendment Attorney and self proclaimed Free Speech Advocate files a domain name dispute in a Czech Arbitration Court ( a foreign panelist) and it sure looks to me that Marc Randazza did this in order to go directly AGAINST the U.S. Constitution.
Marc Randazza tries to claim I have made money from his not so famous alleged brand. Yet that is simply not true, I have made no money from that domain name and have in fact lost money. I still own the name now because Marc Randazza had Godaddy lock the name, otherwise I would have sold it for 12 Million Dollars.. maybe if I win the right to keep the name I can sell it to a porn connoisseur ( breath, it's Parody ).
The use of MarcRandazza.com is FAIR and non-commercial and Marc Randazza knows it.. he is grasping at straws to redeem his very bad name .. that he claims is his good name and boy is Marc Randazza lying constantly.
In the Glen Beck Case Marc Randazza says, "I personally would find it distressing if the panel were to make a decision that completely disregards the U.S. Constitution in favor of a foreign perspective that adopts View 1."
YET it's not so distressing when the Constitution is disregarded to protect the ego of whiny baby attorney Marc Randazza.
In the Glen Beck Case Documents, Marc Randazza goes on to say, "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. Beck’s complaint would be humiliatingly doomed as well in a U.S. court. "
Hmmm.. so Marc Randazza, Hypocritical Attorney finds it puzzling that a man would try and get a domain name with his name in it, yet Marc Randazza sure is not seeming puzzled when the domain name has Marc Randazza in it. Surely a defamation claim would be humiliating to dumb ol' Marc Randazza.
And it all seems so obvious now as to why Marc Randazza did not file in a U.S. Court.
The above document is so Full of Shit, as Marc Randazza seems to be taking the opposite side of it all now... poor baby.. afraid of a girl buying a domain name and has to file a protective order.. IN HIS HOUR OF TERROR !!! ( as Seen on Nationally Syndicated NPR )
Hypocrite Marc Randazza 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."
So is Marc Randazza claiming to be a First Amendment Champion. REALLY ? Is that what your Going with Dipshit ?
Well, Folks Marc Randazza is certainly NOT a First Amendment Champion.
Marc Randazza got a whole lot of my blogs shut down because he did not like me complaining about Marc J. Randazza. Marc Randazza filed a protective order against me.
Marc Randazza threatened me in private emails on making him an enemy. Marc Randazza gathered a lynch mob, lying about my motives and attacked me online, in my my post office mail, my email, and in world wide blogs and forums.
Marc Randazza lied to a Forbes reporter and painted me in false light as if I had attacked a child. Marc Randazza accused me of extortion when Marc Randazza himself offered to buy the domain name and I said NO.
Marc Randazza has been on a rant for nearly a year now just because of a domain name. And all this to suppress my Free Speech rights, my First Amendment rights and in essence has violated the rights of all bloggers and citizens and has so far set some pretty bad precedence.
Marc Randazza is the one that "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 " .
Marc Randazza wanted to violated my constitutional rights, therefore Marc Randazza brought this "ACTION" before an international domain name arbitration panel. "Of Course" I "Levy no Critique" at Marc Randazza for "seeking to vindicate his perceived rights in this forum".
Marc Randazza, Alleged First Amendment Rights Attorney and Advocate of Free Speech, certainly seems to be making REAL First Amendment Champions, such as myself, CRINGE.
A Few more quotes from the document above as Marc Randazza blathers on, in defense of his client, yet now in a hypocritical rant fights for the exact opposite against Blogger, Super Hero Crystal L. Cox, the "REAL" Free Speech Champion.
"We are certain that despite our disagreement with Mr. Beck’s 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."
Drama, Drama, Drama Queen !!!
"I am certain that neither party wishes to see First Amendment rights subordinated to international trademark principles, thus unwittingly proving Mr. Beck’s 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. "
Don't you throw up a bit when hypocritical, down right EVIL lying lawyers such as Marc John Randazza, sign their Blather and Yammering with "Sincerely," Marc John Randazza
Blah.. Blah.. Blah..
Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Gary Cohn. JerryFalwell.com Domain Name Dispute
Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty Alliance lost the rights to JerryFalwell.com. Yet Marc Randazza believes he has the rights to MarcRandazza.com just because he says so.
Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Gary Cohn,
"For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides that the domain names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant claims rights, but that Complainant's rights in his personal name are not protectable under the Policy. The majority also finds that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names at issue. Accordingly, the relief requested in the Complaint is denied. "
Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Gary Cohn,
"For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides that the domain names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant claims rights, but that Complainant's rights in his personal name are not protectable under the Policy. The majority also finds that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names at issue. Accordingly, the relief requested in the Complaint is denied. "
Aug 28, 2012
Marc Randazza Hypocrite Super Duper Anti-Free Speech Attorney. Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group Lied to Me, Violated my Legal and Constitutional Rights, Threatened me and Disrupted my Quality of Life. Fuck YOU Marc Randazza, Enjoy the Never Ending Parody of Hypocrite Attorney Marc Randazza who is above the Law and is Dangerous. Marc Randazza supports stalkers as in Supporting Devoy. Marc Randazza wishes women in the porn industry to drive cars over cliffs and he punches guys who take pictures of his wife. Marc Randazza is a hypocrite Asshole. FUCK YOU Marc Fucking Randazza. You are a Liar who Ruins Lives for a LIVING.
Marc Randazza will DO Anything, Legal or Not to Steal Domain Names and to SUPPRESS Free Speech.
Jun 25, 2012
Marc Randazza Filed a Domain Name Dispute with the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), this way he can get the FIGHT for Cheaper and Possibly Control the Outcome. Marc Randazza is said to have a connection on the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) Panel, We Shall See.
Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) Domain Name Dispute. Marc Randazza filed a Domain Name Complaint with the Czech Arbitration Court in order to steal MarcRandazza.com for Marc J. Randazza was to damn dumb to by MarcRandazza.com himself.
The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) Domain Name Dispute response is due from blogger Crystal Cox on July 12th 2012, as told to me by the Czech Arbitration Court.
A typical Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) Domain Name Dispute takes 2 to 3 months to decide, so looks like 2-3 months from July 12th, Marc J. Randazza of Randazza legal group may finally get to steal MarcRandazza.com, we shall see. Meanwhile Blogger Crystal Cox, who really dislikes arrogant asshole attorney Marc Randazza, well I will be Bloggin' away on Marc Randazza.com, so if you got a tip on Marc John Randazza, worlds Dumbest Attorney, please email me at SavvyBroker@yahoo.com
I am kind of Rooting for the Big Dummy. I mean Marc Randazza is a Domain Name Lawyer and All, the world's dumbest Domain Name Lawyer, but non-the-less still a Big Shot in Domain Name Law and Domain Name Disputes, it sure would suck if he could not steal MarcRandazza.com from me as he stole JenniferRandazza.com from whom I gave the name too. More on that Later, and more later on the Protective Order that Jackass Marc Randazza filed in a Las Vegas Court because he was / is so scared of a Blogger's Free Speech Rights.
I am working on my Domain Name Dispute response to the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC, it will be a 3 Panel Decision, so Ol' Marc Randazza will have to cough up another thousand dollars anyway. SO much for not filing with WIPO so it was cheaper.
All this to suppress free speech and retaliate against a blogger for buying a domain name and choosing a better attorney for my Free Speech case, WOW, Marc Randazza really hates free speech when its him getting PANTS.
The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) Domain Name Dispute response is due from blogger Crystal Cox on July 12th 2012, as told to me by the Czech Arbitration Court.
A typical Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) Domain Name Dispute takes 2 to 3 months to decide, so looks like 2-3 months from July 12th, Marc J. Randazza of Randazza legal group may finally get to steal MarcRandazza.com, we shall see. Meanwhile Blogger Crystal Cox, who really dislikes arrogant asshole attorney Marc Randazza, well I will be Bloggin' away on Marc Randazza.com, so if you got a tip on Marc John Randazza, worlds Dumbest Attorney, please email me at SavvyBroker@yahoo.com
I am kind of Rooting for the Big Dummy. I mean Marc Randazza is a Domain Name Lawyer and All, the world's dumbest Domain Name Lawyer, but non-the-less still a Big Shot in Domain Name Law and Domain Name Disputes, it sure would suck if he could not steal MarcRandazza.com from me as he stole JenniferRandazza.com from whom I gave the name too. More on that Later, and more later on the Protective Order that Jackass Marc Randazza filed in a Las Vegas Court because he was / is so scared of a Blogger's Free Speech Rights.
I am working on my Domain Name Dispute response to the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC, it will be a 3 Panel Decision, so Ol' Marc Randazza will have to cough up another thousand dollars anyway. SO much for not filing with WIPO so it was cheaper.
All this to suppress free speech and retaliate against a blogger for buying a domain name and choosing a better attorney for my Free Speech case, WOW, Marc Randazza really hates free speech when its him getting PANTS.
Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) - Why would anyone be so blatantly sneaky to go through a Czech Arbitration Court in Prague to file a Domain Name Dispute.
Who would file a Dispute with the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC)? Why not file a Domain Name Dispute with WIPO or a U.S. Court? Well the reason would be if you have an insider that controls the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) or maybe it is cheaper to file a Domain Name dispute with Czech Arbitration Court (CAC).
Odds are the Complaintant has someone they have bough off on the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) arbitration board. More coming soon regarding who in the world would go to such links to suppress Free Speech.
" The Board of ICANN has approved a new provider of domain name dispute resolution services. It is the Czech Arbitration Court in Prague."
Source
http://domaintimes.blogspot.com/2009/01/czech-arbitration-court-new-provider-of.html
"The Czech Arbitration Court administers ADR Proceedings according to ADR Rules and ADR Supplemental Rules, and in line with the Public Policy Rules"
http://www.adreu.eurid.eu/
Czech Arbitration Court
http://www.adr.eu/
"Amsterdam/Prague May 6th – After the successful launch of the .CO.NL extension, the CO.NL Operator is proud to announce that the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) now provides Dispute Resolution for CO.NL Domains through its Online Dispute Resolution Platform."
http://www.eurodns.com/eurodns-news/article/czech-arbitration-court-ready-to-handle-conl-doma
Coming soon conflicts of interest with Complaining Party and the Czech Arbitration Court. Free Speech Issues, Double Standards, other Domain Name Cases such as the Glen Beck Case and the case of the (.net) version of this domain name. I will also be telling you what constitutional rights are being violated, who is doing it and way more about the motive to Suppress Free Speech.
Who would go to such lengths to Retaliate against a Blogger and Silence Free Speech and the First Amendment Rights of a Blogger?
Also coming soon other tactics to Suppress Free Speech in the name of Fighting for Free Speech... What is right and LAW for some is NOT for others. Some folks control Google, Wordpress, Godaddy and more simply because they huff and puff and you have no rights against such Bully's. Stay Tuned as Win or Lose. I will Fight and I am on the Right side of the law, the right side of Free Speech and the right side of the Moral Compass.
Let's see who gets favors... we sure know that Glen Beck gets no favors in Domain Name Disputes.. but I bet this Complaintant does... Watch.. Wait.. More Coming Soon..
Odds are the Complaintant has someone they have bough off on the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) arbitration board. More coming soon regarding who in the world would go to such links to suppress Free Speech.
Here are some Resource Links Regarding
" The Board of ICANN has approved a new provider of domain name dispute resolution services. It is the Czech Arbitration Court in Prague."
Source
http://domaintimes.blogspot.com/2009/01/czech-arbitration-court-new-provider-of.html
"The Czech Arbitration Court administers ADR Proceedings according to ADR Rules and ADR Supplemental Rules, and in line with the Public Policy Rules"
http://www.adreu.eurid.eu/
Czech Arbitration Court
http://www.adr.eu/
"Amsterdam/Prague May 6th – After the successful launch of the .CO.NL extension, the CO.NL Operator is proud to announce that the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) now provides Dispute Resolution for CO.NL Domains through its Online Dispute Resolution Platform."
http://www.eurodns.com/eurodns-news/article/czech-arbitration-court-ready-to-handle-conl-doma
Coming soon conflicts of interest with Complaining Party and the Czech Arbitration Court. Free Speech Issues, Double Standards, other Domain Name Cases such as the Glen Beck Case and the case of the (.net) version of this domain name. I will also be telling you what constitutional rights are being violated, who is doing it and way more about the motive to Suppress Free Speech.
Who would go to such lengths to Retaliate against a Blogger and Silence Free Speech and the First Amendment Rights of a Blogger?
Also coming soon other tactics to Suppress Free Speech in the name of Fighting for Free Speech... What is right and LAW for some is NOT for others. Some folks control Google, Wordpress, Godaddy and more simply because they huff and puff and you have no rights against such Bully's. Stay Tuned as Win or Lose. I will Fight and I am on the Right side of the law, the right side of Free Speech and the right side of the Moral Compass.
Let's see who gets favors... we sure know that Glen Beck gets no favors in Domain Name Disputes.. but I bet this Complaintant does... Watch.. Wait.. More Coming Soon..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)