1

ProSePlaintiff
CrystalL.Cox
(406)6249510
POBox2027
PortTownsend,WA98368

UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
DistrictofFlorida

CaseNumberPending
Complaint/JuryDemand

CrystalL.Cox,Plaintiff
15JohnandJaneDoePlaintiffs

v.

Defendant(s)

SERVE:

DefendantRandazzaLegalGroup
2S.BiscayneBlvd
SuiteNumber2600
Miami,FL33131

DefendantMarcJ.Randazza,personallyandprofessionally
2S.BiscayneBlvd
SuiteNumber2600
Miami,FL33131

DefendantWIPO,PeterL.Michaelsonpersonallyandprofessionally
590MadisonAve.
18thFloor
NewYork,NewYork10022
And
15HollyTreeLane,SuiteE
Rumson,NewJersey077601950

DefendantKashmirHill,personallyandprofessionally,
250MontgomeryStreet,Suite800
SanFrancisco,CA94104

DefendantWIPO,WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization
34,chemindesColombettes
P.O.Box18
1211Geneva20
Switzerland

DefendantFrancisGurryWIPO,personallyandprofessionally
34,chemindesColombettes
P.O.Box18
1211Geneva20
Switzerland

DefendantEricWilbersWIPO,personallyandprofessionally

34,chemindesColombettes
P.O.Box18
1211Geneva20
Switzerland

DefendantTracyL.Coenen,personallyandprofessionally
111EastWisconsinAvenue,Suite1230
Milwaukee,WI53202
414.727.2361Phone

DefendantSequenceInc.

111EastWisconsinAvenue,Suite1230
Milwaukee,WI53202

DefendantDavidCarr,personallyandprofessionally
TheNewYorkTimes
620EighthAvenue
NewYork,NY10018

DefendantNewYorkTimes
620EighthAvenue
NewYork,NY10018
2

DefendantEdwardKwakwaWIPO,personallyandprofessionally

34,chemindesColombettes
P.O.Box18
1211Geneva20
Switzerland

DefendantForbesInc.,
605thAvenue
NewYork,NY10011
Phone:2126202200
AND
WestCoastOffice:
250MontgomeryStreet,Suite800
SanFrancisco,CA94104
Phone:4155444800

DefendantKevinD.Padrick,personallyandprofessionally
ObsidianFinanceGroup,LLC
5CenterpointeDr.
Suite590
LakeOswego,Oregon97035
Office:5032458800

DefendantDavidS.Aman,personallyandprofessionally
1600PioneerTower
888SWFifthAvenue
PortlandOregon97204
Phone:503.221.1440

DefendantStevenWilker,personallyandprofessionally
1600PioneerTower
888SWFifthAvenue
PortlandOregon97204
Phone:503.221.1440

DefendantTonkonTorpLawFirm,
1600PioneerTower
3

888SWFifthAvenue
PortlandOregon97204
Phone:503.221.1440

DefendantDavidCoursey,personallyandprofessionally
ForbesContributor
1528TamariskLane
Tracy,CA,953778273

DefendantBobGarfield,personallyandprofessionally
160VarickSt.
NewYork,NY10013

NewYorkPublicRadio
160VarickSt.
NewYork,NY10013
AND
NewYorkPublicRadio,OntheMedia,
wNYC,NewYorkPublicRadio
160VarickSt.
NewYork,NY10013

DefendantMulvihillandRushieLLC
2424EYorkSt#316
Philadelphia,PA19125

DefendantJordanRushie,personallyandprofessionally
MulvihillandRushieLLC
2424EYorkSt#316
Philadelphia,PA19125

DefendantJasonM.Jones,personallyandprofessionally
TheSaltyDroidBlog
47WestPolkStreet
Suite100293
Chicago,IL606052085

DefendantMultnomahCountySheriffOffice
4

501SEHawthorneBlvd.,Suite350
Portland,Oregon,97214

DefendantDanielStaton,Sheriff
501SEHawthorneBlvd.,Suite350
Portland,Oregon,97214

DefendantMarshallRoss,SeniorDeputy,personallyandprofessionally
501SEHawthorneBlvd.,Suite350
Portland,Oregon,97214

DefendantRoxanneGrinage,personallyandprofessionally
POBox22225
PhiladelphiaPA19136

DefendantJudgeGloriaNavarro,
LasVegasCourts
333LasVegasBlvd.S.
Room3071
LasVegas,NV89101

DefendantStephenLamont
P.StephenLamont
175KingStreet
Armonk,N.Y.10504

DefendantProskauerRose
ElevenTimesSquare
(EighthAvenue&41stStreet)
NewYork,NY100368299

DefendantKennethRubenstein
ElevenTimesSquare
(EighthAvenue&41stStreet)
NewYork,NY100368299

DefendantDouglasMelamed,Intel
5

2200MissionCollegeBlvd.
SantaClara,CA950541549

DefendantStevenR.RodgersIntel
2200MissionCollegeBlvd.
SantaClara,CA950541549

DefendantWarnerBros.,
4000WarnerBlvd
Burbank,CA91522

DefendantBobParsonsGodaddy
14455NHaydenRd#219
Scottsdale,AZ85260

DefendantGodaddyInc.
14455NHaydenRd#219
Scottsdale,AZ85260

125JohnandJaneDoeDefendant(s)

CauseofAction

1)18:1964,Racketeering(RICO)Act/27:1332ri,Racketeering/Corrupt
Organization

2.)CivilRightsViolation
6

3.)Defamation28:1332DiversityLibel,Assault,Slander

4.)Malpractice

5.)CivilConspiracy

6.)CausationandRemoteness

7.)DutyofCareBreachofDuty

8.)NegligenceTort,ProfessionalNegligence

9.)18USC1512Tamperingwithawitness,victim,oraninformant

10.)TortiousInterferencewithBusiness

11.)AntiTrustLaws,CompetitionLaws,theShermanAct,ClaytonAct,
AntitrustProceduresandPenaltiesAct("APPA"or"TunneyAct")

Parties

1.PlaintiffCrystalL.CoxisanindividualoftheStateofWashington,USA

2.Oninformationandbelief,KashmirHill,isanindividualresidinginCalifornia

3.Oninformationandbelief,TonkonTorpLawFirmisaPortlandLawFirm,anda
CaliforniaLawFirm

4.Oninformationandbelief,ForbesInc.aNewYorkCorporation,andaCalifornia
Corporation.

5.Oninformationandbelief,DavidS.AmanisanindividualresidinginOregon

6.Oninformationandbelief,KevinD.Padrick,isanindividualresidinginOregon

7.Oninformationandbelief,RandazzaLegalGroupisalawfirmwithofficesin
7

California,Arizona,Nevada,Florida.

8.Oninformationandbelief,MarcRandazzaisaresidentofNevada

9.Oninformationandbelief,DavidCourseyisaresidentofCalifornia

10.Oninformationandbelief,BobGarfieldisaNewYorkResident

11.Oninformationandbelief,NewYorkPublicRadioisaNewYorkBusiness

12.Oninformationandbelief,DavidCarrisaNewJerseyResident

13.Oninformationandbelief,theNewYorkTimesisaNewYorkCorporation

14.Oninformationandbelief,PeterL.MichaelsonisaNewJerseyResident

15.Oninformationandbelief,WIPOisaninternationalcorporation

16.Oninformationandbelief,FrancisGurryisaSwitzerlandResident

17.Oninformationandbelief,EricWilbursisaisaSwitzerlandResident

18.Oninformationandbelief,TracyL.CoenenisaWisconsinResident

19.Oninformationandbelief,SequenceInc.isaWisconsinCorporation

20.Oninformationandbelief,MulvihillandRushieLLCisaPhiladelphia,PA
Corporation

21.Oninformationandbelief,JordanRushieisaPhiladelphia,PAresident

22.Oninformationandbelief,JasonM.Jones,IllinoisResident

22.DefendantMultnomahCountySheriffOffice,Oregon

23.DefendantDanielStatonOregonResident

24.DefendantMarshallRossOregonResident

25.DefendantStevenWilker,OregonResident

26.DefendantRoxanneGrinagePhiladelphiaPA,Resident

27.)DefendantEdwardKwakwaWIPO,GenevaSwitzerlandResident

28.)DefendantJudgeGloriaNavarro,LasVegasJudge,Resident

29.)DefendantStephenLamont,NewYork,NewJerseyResident

30.)DefendantProskauerRose,NewYorkLawFirm

31.)DefendantKennethRubenstein,NewYorkLawyer,Resident

32.)DefendantDouglasMelamed,Intel

33.)DefendantStevenR.Rodgers,Intel

34.)DefendantTimeWarner,CaliforniaCorporation

35.)GodaddyInc.,ArizonaCorporation

36.)BobParsonsGodaddy,ArizonaResident

37.)DefendantJeffreyBewkes

1100JohnandJaneDoeDefendant(s),residinginvariousjurisdictions.

JuryDemand

I,PlaintiffCrystalCoxherebyDemandaTrialbyJuryregardingthiscomplaintand
causeofaction.

JurisdictionandVenue

Plaintiffappearsinthisaction"InPropriaPersona"andmovesthiscourttoproceedin
9

10

FormaPauperis,PlaintiffhasattachedamotiontoproceedinFormaPauperis.

ThisactionarisesasaresultofDefendant(s)violationofPlaintiffsconstitutionalrights
and,accordingly,thisCourthassubjectmatterjurisdictionunder28U.S.C.1331,1343,
and1367,aswellas42U.S.C.1983.

ThisactionarisesasaresultofDefendant(s)violationofPlaintiffsCivilRights,
ConstitutionalRightsandallegedconspiracyamongmedia,reporters,radios,attorneys
andlawfirmsinwhichdobusinessinIllinois.

FactualAllegations

TheFollowingisstatedUpontheknowledgeandbeliefofPlaintiffCrystalCox:

Plaintiffappearsinthisaction"InPropriaPersona"andasksthatherpointsand
authoritiesrelieduponherein,andissuesraisedherein,mustbeaddressed"onthe
merits"andnotsimplyonherProSeStatus.

OnNovember30th2011,PlaintiffCoxhadaonedaytrial,andwasissuedajudgementagainst
herforDefamation,intheamountof$2.5MillionDollars,theCasewasDistrictofOregon
3:11cv00057HZ,ObsidianFinanceGroupv.CrystalCox.

Onapprox.,December7th,2011DefendantKashmirHill,aForbesReporter,interviewed
DefendantKevinPadrick,thePlaintiffinthatcase,andPublishedfalseanddefamatory
statementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCox.

Afterthistime,multiplepublicationsaroundtheworldrepostedthesesamefalseanddefamatory
statementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCox.

Approx.December10th,2011DefendantDavidCarrinterviewedPlaintiffCoxandDefendant
KevinPadrick,andonDecember11,2011,DefendantDavidCarrpublishedaNewYorkTimes
Articletitled,"WhenTruthSurvivesFreeSpeech".DefendantDavidCarrreferredtothefalse
anddefamatorystatementspreviouslymadebyDefendantKashmirHillinForbes.

DefendantDavidCarrinsinuatedthatPlaintiffCoxwasguiltyofextortingDefendantPadrick.
DefendantDavidCarrpostedthesestatementswithknowledgeofthefacts,asDefendantDavid
CarrinterviewedPlaintiffCoxandknewthatCoxclaimedtheemailwasinresponsetowhat
attorneyDefendantDavidAmanhadsenther.YetDefendantDavidAmanliedtoDefendant
DavidCarrandDefendantCarrbelievedAmanoverPlaintiffCox,thoughthefactswereeasyto
seewhentheemailswerereadincontext.ItisaneasilyPROVENfactthatPlaintiffCoxsent
10

11

thateMailinreplytoanemailfromDefendantDavidAman,anemailthreateningalawsuit.And
anemailsentafterthatthreatwasputintoactionina10MillionDollarDefamationLawsuit.

Approx.March30th,2012,DefendantMarcRandazzabeganpublishingfalseanddefamatory
statementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCox,attackinga3yearoldonline.
DefendantKashmirHilltheninterviewed,spokewithDefendantMarcRandazzaandpublished
thesesamefalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCox.

OnApril2nd2012,DefendantKashmirHillbeganpublishingfalseanddefamatorystatementsto
athirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCox,attackinga3yearold.PlaintiffCrystalCoxhadno
blogabouta3yearold,madenostatementsonlineaboutthisthreeyearold,yetDefendant
KashmirHillknowinglypostedfalseanddefamatoryinformationregardingPlaintiffCox.

DefendantJordanRushie,DefendantMulvihillandRushieLLCpublishedfalseand
defamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningCox,inanarticleonPhillyLawBlow,
byJordanRushie,Titled"TheEvolutionofCrystalCox:AnatomyofaScammer",
dated,April3rd2012.DefendantJordanRushiepostedfalseanddefamatory
statementsregardingCoxbeingguiltyofextortionandattackingathreeyearold.
OnApril6th2012,DefendantBobGarfieldinterviewedDefendantMarcRandazzaon
DefendantwNYC,DefendantNewYorkPublicRadio.TheshowwascalledCOMBATING
"BAD"SPEECHWITHMORESPEECH,Dated,April06,2012.DefendantOntheMedia,as
Exhibitsshow.DefendantBobGarfieldandDefendantMarcRandazzastatedfalseand
defamatory,slanderousstatementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCox.DefendantBob
GarfieldandDefendantMarcRandazzaaccusedPlaintiffCoxofattackingachildonline,of
beingguiltyofextortion,andallmannerofunethicalandcriminalactivity.Thesefalseand
defamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCoxinthisworldwidemediumof
communicationhascausedPlaintiffCoximmeasurable,irreparabledamage.

OnJun18th2012,DefendantMarcRandazzafiledaCzechcourtcomplaintagainstPlaintiffCox
andEliotBernstein,toinitiateadomainnamedispute.Inthiscase,DefendantMarcRandazza
statedfalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCox.Defendant
MarcRandazzausedDefendantKashmirHill,DefendantJordanRushieandDefendantDavid
Carrsfalseanddefamatorystatementsashisevidencetostealtheintellectualpropertyof
PlaintiffCox.

OnJuly27th2012,DefendantMarcRandazzafiledaWIPOcomplaintagainstPlaintiffCoxand
EliotBernstein,toinitiateadomainnamedispute.Inthiscase,DefendantMarcRandazzastated
falseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCox.DefendantMarc
RandazzausedDefendantKashmirHill,DefendantJordanRushieandDefendantDavidCarrs
falseanddefamatorystatementsashisevidencetostealtheintellectualpropertyofPlaintiff
Cox.DefendantMarcRandazzaalsostatedtothirdpartyWIPOthatPlaintiffCoxwasguiltyof
11

12

Extortionandhadalsoextortedhim,yetattorneyDefendantMarcRandazzahadfiledno
criminalchargesagainstCoxnorallowedherdueprocessoflaw.

OnNovember,28,2012DefendantMarcRandazzafiledalegalactionagainstPlaintiffCoxin
theDistrictofNevada.DefendantRandazzasattorneyofrecordinthiscaseisRonaldD.Green
ofRandazzaLegalGroup,thecasenumberisDistrictofNevadaCase
2:12cv02040GMNPAL.Inthislegalaction,athirdparty,DefendantMarcRandazza,Coxs
formerattorneystatedthatPlaintiffCoxhadextortedhimandgavethefalseanddefamatory
statementsofDefendantsashisevidence.

DefendantMarcRandazzadidnotfilecriminalchargeswiththeauthorities.NordidDefendant
Randazzafilechargeswiththeattorneygeneraloranyotherbodyofauthority,regardinghis
allegationsthatPlaintiffCoxhadextortedhim,wasguiltyofextortionorhadbeeninapriorcase
whereCoxwasfoundguiltyofextortion.DefendantMarcRandazza,anattorney,would
certainlyknowhowtofilecriminalcharges.DefendantMarcRandazzaviolatedtherightsofhis
formerclient,PlaintiffCoxinnotfilingchargesandallowingCoxdueprocessoflaw.Instead,this
wellknownattorneyusedworldrenownedmediaoutletssuchasForbes,theNewYorkTimes
andNPR,andaninternational,highlyreputablepublicationputoutbyWIPOashiscourtoflaw,
judgeandjuryandsimplypronouncedthatPlaintiffCrystalCoxwasguiltyofextortion.

AsdidDefendantKashmirHill,DefendantDavidCarr,DefendantDavidAman,DefendantKevin
PadrickandJohnandJaneDoeDefendants.

DefendantMarcRandazzausedthefalseanddefamatorystatementsinForbesandtheNew
YorkTimesmadebyDefendantKashmirHillandDefendantDavidCarr,aswellasthefalseand
defamatorystatementsmadebyattorneyDefendantJordanRushie,asPROOF,evidenceina
federalcourtcase,thatPlaintiffCoxhadactedinbadfaith,hadextortedhim,andhadattacked
hischild.JudgeGloriaNavarrocalledthisevidencelegalcommentarythoughitwasfalseand
defamatorystatementsmadebyDefendantstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCox.
ConsequentlyPlaintiffCoxlostmassiveonlinecontent,blogsanddomainnamessimplydueto
thefalseanddefamatorystatementsofdefendantsusedbyJudgeGloriaNavarroasfactual
evidence.

OnNov.30th2011,DefendantPeterL.Michaelson,SoleWIPOPanelist,publishedfalseand
defamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCoxAndEliotBernsteininaWIPO
publication,whichhasawidespread,internationalreaderbase.DefendantPeterL.Michaelson
quotedDefendantDavidCarrsdefamatoryandfalsestatementsmadetoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffandusedDefendantCarrandDefendantHillsfalseanddefamatory
statementasevidenceagainstPlaintiffCoxinseizingdomainnamesbelongingtoherandto
Bernstein.DefendantPeterL.MichaelsontookthestatedwordofDefendantMarcRandazza
andpublishedthesefalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdparty.DefendantWIPOand
DefendantPeterL.MichaelsonaccusedPlaintiffCoxoftheCrimeofExtortion,ofwhichisa
falseanddefamatorystatementtoathirdparty,concerningPlaintiffCox.
12

13

AfterDefendantPeterL.Michaelsonsfalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCoxAndEliotBernsteinwerepublishedinanInternationalWIPOcomplaint,
DefendantMarcRandazzaviahisattorneyRonaldD.GreenofRandazzaLegalGroup,atthis
point,usedthesefalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCoxto
furtherharm,harass,defameandretaliateagainstPlaintiffCox,eventhoughDefendant
RandazzawastheonewhomadetheStatementstoWIPOinthefirstplace.Atthispointthe
statementsintheWIPOpublicationmadebyDefendantPeterL.MichaelsonofDefendantWIPO
BECAMEofficialevidenceandproofinDefendantRandazzascaseagainstPlaintiffCoxand
EliotBernstein(DistrictofNevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPAL).

Next,JudgeGloriaNavarrousedtheevidence,legalcommentaryandsloughoffalseand
defamatorystatementsasjustificationtogivemassivedomainnamesandintellectualpropertyto
DefendantMarcRandazzainapreliminaryinjunction.Thiswipedoutthousandsoflinks,wiped
outthesearchenginerankingofPlaintiffCox,deletedmassiveamountsofcontentthatCoxhad
createdonline,anddamagedherintellectualpropertyandonlinemedia.Thisactionbyafederal
judgealsocausedabacklashofdefamation,harassment,retaliationandlossofreputation,
clients,friendsandfamily(causedHARMtoPlaintiffCox).

DefendantMarcRandazzasubmittedfalseanddefamatorystatementsbythirdpartiesinto
DistrictofNevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPALasfactualevidenceagainstCox.Judge
GloriaNavarrogaveDefendantMarcRandazzathepropertyofPlaintiffCoxwithoutFirst
AmendmentAdjudication,withoutdueprocessoflawbasedonthefalseanddefamatory
statementsofDefendantsinthiscase.

Plaintiffappearsinthisaction"InPropriaPersona"andasksthatherpointsand
authoritiesrelieduponherein,andissuesraisedherein,mustbeaddressed"on
themerits"andnotsimplyonherProSeStatus.

OftentimescourtsdonottakeProSeLitigantsserious.I,PlaintiffCrystalCoxwishtobe
takenseriousandtonothavemyallegationdismissed.

"Courterrsifcourtdismissesproselitigantwithoutinstructionsofhowpleadingsare
deficientandhowtorepairpleadings."PlaskeyvCIA,953F.2nd25.TheCourtgranted
suchleniency,orliberalconstruction,toprosepleadingsagainstthebackdropof
Conleyv.Gibsonsundemandingnosetoffactsstandard.(SeeConleyv.Gibson,
355U.S.41,4546(1957)([A]complaintshouldnotbedismissedforfailuretostatea
claimunlessitappearsbeyonddoubtthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsin
supportofhisclaimwhichwouldentitlehimtorelief.),abrogatedbyBellAtl.Corp.v.
13

14

Twombly,550U.S.544,56163(2007).Thisstandardepitomizedthenoticepleading
regimeenvisionedbythedraftersoftheFederalRules,whoemphasizeddiscoveryas
thestageatwhichaclaimstruemeritwouldcometolight,ratherthanpleading.See
ChristopherM.Fairman,TheMythofNoticePleading,45ARIZ.L.REV.987,990
(2003)(Withmeritsdeterminationasthegoal,theFederalRulescreateanew
proceduralsystemthatmassivelydeemphasizestheroleofpleadings.).

TheCourtsfailuretoexplainhowprosepleadingsaretobeliberallyconstrued.(See
Bacharach&Entzeroth,supranote7,at2930(assertingthatbecausethe
SupremeCourtneverdefinedthedegreeofrelaxationaffordedprosepleadingsin
comparisontotheliberalnoticepleadingstandardapplicabletoalllitigants,lower
courtsadopteddifferentiterationsoftherule).~..indicatesitsbeliefthatthestandard
wasalreadylenientenoughtorenderadetailedarticulationofthepracticeunnecessary
topreventprematuredismissalofmeritoriouscases.However,withBellAtlanticCorp.
v.Twombly(550U.S.544(2007).andAshcroftv.Iqbal(129S.Ct.1937(2009)retiring
thenosetoffactsstandardandratifyingthemeansbywhichlowercourtsdismissed
moredisfavoredcasesunderConley,(SeegenerallyRichardL.Marcus,TheRevivalof
FactPleadingUndertheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,86COLUM.L.REV.433,
43537(1986)(explaininghowthereemergenceoffactpleadingresultedfromlower
courtsrefusalstoacceptconclusoryallegationsassufficientundertheFederalRulesin
particularcategoriesofsuits).

..liberalconstructionaspresentlypracticedisnotifiteverwassufficienttoprotect
proselitigantsaccesstocourts.Thenewplausibilitystandard(SeeTwombly,550
U.S.at570(requiringacomplainttoallegeenoughfactstostateaclaimtoreliefthatis
plausibleonitsface)..withwhichcourtsnowdeterminetheadequacyofcomplaints
disproportionatelyharmsproselitigants.(SeePatriciaW.Hatamyar,TheTaoof
Pleading:DoTwomblyandIqbalMatterEmpirically?,59AM.U.L.REV.553,615
(2010)(observingasubstantiallygreaterincreaseintherateofdismissalofprosesuits
thanrepresentedsuitspostIqbal).

Prosecomplaint[s],howeverinartfullypleaded,[are]heldtolessstringentstandards
thanformalpleadingsdraftedbylawyers.(Estellev.Gamble,429U.S.97,106(1976)
(quotingHainesv.Kerner,404U.S.519,52021(1972)(percuriam)).

HAINESv.KERNER,ETAL.404U.S.519,92S.Ct.594,30L.Ed.2d652.Whatever
maybethelimitsonthescopeofinquiryofcourtsintotheinternaladministrationof
prisons,allegationssuchasthoseassertedbypetitioner,howeverinartfullypleaded,
aresufficienttocallfortheopportunitytooffersupportingevidence.Wecannotsaywith
14

15

assurancethatundertheallegationsoftheprosecomplaint,whichweholdtoless
stringentstandardsthanformalpleadingsdraftedbylawyers,itappears"beyonddoubt
thattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupportofhisclaimwhichwouldentitlehim
torelief."Conleyv.Gibson,355U.S.41,4546(1957).SeeDioguardiv.Durning,139
F.2d774(CA21944).

ESTELLE,CORRECTIONSDIRECTOR,ETAL.v.GAMBLE29U.S.97,97S.Ct.285,
50L.Ed.2d251.Wenowconsiderwhetherrespondent'scomplaintstatesacognizable
1983claim.Thehandwrittenprosedocumentistobeliberallyconstrued.AstheCourt
unanimouslyheldinHainesv.Kerner,404U.S.519(1972),aprosecomplaint,
"howeverinartfullypleaded,"mustbeheldto"lessstringentstandardsthanformal
pleadingsdraftedbylawyers"andcanonlybedismissedforfailuretostateaclaimifit
appears"beyonddoubtthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupportofhisclaim
whichwouldentitlehimtorelief."Id.,at520521,quotingConleyv.Gibson,355U.S.
41,4546(1957)

BALDWINCOUNTYWELCOMECENTERv.BROWN466U.S.147,104S.Ct.1723,
80L.Ed.2d196,52U.S.L.W.3751.Rule8(f)providesthat"pleadingsshallbeso
construedastodosubstantialjustice."Wefrequentlyhavestatedthatprosepleadings
aretobegivenaliberalconstruction.

HUGHESv.ROWEETAL.449U.S.5,101S.Ct.173,66L.Ed.2d163,49U.S.L.W.
3346.Petitioner'scomplaint,likemostprisonercomplaintsfiledintheNorthernDistrict
ofIllinois,wasnotpreparedbycounsel.Itissettledlawthattheallegationsofsucha
complaint,"howeverinartfullypleaded"areheld"tolessstringentstandardsthanformal
pleadingsdraftedbylawyers,seeHainesv.Kerner,404U.S.519,520(1972).Seealso
Maclinv.Paulson,627F.2d83,86(CA71980)Frenchv.Heyne,547F.2d994,996
(CA71976).Suchacomplaintshouldnotbedismissedforfailuretostateaclaimunless
itappearsbeyonddoubtthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupportofhisclaim
whichwouldentitlehimtorelief.Haines,supra,at520521.And,ofcourse,the
allegationsofthecomplaintaregenerallytakenastrueforpurposesofamotionto
dismiss.Cruzv.Beto,405U.S.319,322(1972).

Boththerighttoproceedproseandliberalpleadingstandardsreflectthemoderncivil
legalsystemsemphasisonprotectingaccesstocourts.(See,e.g.,Phillipsv.Cnty.of
Allegheny,515F.3d224,230(3dCir.2008)(Fewissues...aremoresignificantthan
pleadingstandards,whicharethekeythatopensaccesstocourts.)DrewA.Swank,In
DefenseofRulesandRoles:TheNeedtoCurbExtremeFormsofProSeAssistance
15

16

andAccommodationinLitigation,54AM.U.L.REV.1537,1546(2005)(notingthat
[o]penaccesstothecourtsforallcitizensisoneoftheprinciplesuponwhichtheright
toprosecuteonesowncaseisfounded).

Selfrepresentationhasfirmrootsinthenotionthatallindividuals,nomattertheir
statusorwealth,areentitledtoairgrievancesforwhichtheymaybeentitledto
relief.(SeeSwank,supranote1,at1546(discussingtheimportanceof
selfrepresentationtothefundamentalpreceptofequalitybeforethelaw).

Access,then,mustnotbecontingentuponretainingcounsel,lesttheentitlement
becomea
mereprivilegedeniedtocertainsegmentsofsociety.Similarly,becausepleadingisthe
gatewaybywhichlitigantsaccessfederalcourts,thedraftersoftheFederalRulesof
CivilProcedurepurposefullyeschewedstrictsufficiencystandards.(SeeProceedings
oftheInstituteonFederalRules(1938)(statementofEdgarTolman),reprintedin
RULESOFCIVILPROCEDUREFORTHEDISTRICTCOURTSOFTHEUNITED
STATES30113(WilliamW.Dawsoned.,1938).

Intheirplace,thedraftersinstitutedaregimeinwhichacomplaintquiteeasilyentitled
itsauthortodiscoveryinordertopreventdismissalofcasesbeforelitigantshave
hadanadequateopportunitytodemonstratetheirmerit.(SeeMarkHerrmann,James
M.Beck&StephenB.Burbank,Debate,PlausibleDenial:ShouldCongressOverrule
TwomblyandIqbal?158U.PA.L.REV.PENNUMBRA141,148(2009),(Burbank,
Rebuttal)(assertingthatthedraftersoftheFederalRulesobjectedtoatechnical
pleadingregimebecauseitwouldtoooftencut[]offadjudicationonthemerits).

Recognizingthattranssubstantivepleadingstandardsdonotsufficientlyaccountforthe
capabilitydifferentialbetweenrepresentedandunrepresentedlitigants,theSupreme
Courtfashionedaruleofspecialsolicitudeforprosepleadings.(SeeRobert
Bacharach&LynEntzeroth,JudicialAdvocacyinProSeLitigation:AReturnto
Neutrality,42IND.L.REV.19,2226(2009)(notingthatcourtscreatedwaystoensure
thatmeritoriousprosesuitswouldnotbedismissedsimplybecausethelitigantslacked
legalknowledgeandexperience,oneofwhichwasliberalconstruction).

Farfromjustarticulatingacommonsystemicvalue,though,therighttoprosecuteones
owncasewithoutassistanceofcounselinfactdependssignificantlyuponliberal
pleadingstandards.(Cf.CharlesE.Clark,TheNewFederalRulesofCivilProcedure:
TheLastPhaseUnderlyingPhilosophyEmbodiedinSomeoftheBasicProvisionsof
theNewProcedure,23A.B.A.J.976,97677(1937)(commentingthatliberalpleading
16

17

ruleswerenecessarytomitigateinformationasymmetriesbetweenplaintiffsand
defendantsthatoftenledtoprematuredismissalofsuits).

Notably,innosuitsaresuchinformationasymmetriesmoreapparentthanthosein
whichproselitigantssuerepresentedadversaries.Thesetypesofsuitscomprisethe
vastmajorityinwhichproselitigantsappear.Cf.JonathanD.Rosenbloom,Exploring
MethodstoImproveManagementandFairnessinProSeCases:AStudyoftheProSe
DocketintheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,30FORDHAMURB.L.J.305,323
(showingthatthemajorityofprosecasesinvolveunrepresentedplaintiffswhosue
governmentaldefendants).

Plaintiffappearsinthisaction"InPropriaPersona"andasksthatherpointsand
authoritiesrelieduponherein,andissuesraisedherein,mustbeaddressed"onthe
merits",SandersvUnitedStates,373US1,at16,17(1963)andaddressedwith
"clarityandparticularity",McCleskeyvZant,111S.Ct.1454,at147071(1991)and
afforded"afullandfair"evidentiaryhearing,TownsendvSain,372U.S.293,atp.1
(1962).SeealsoPickeringvPennsylvaniaRailroadCo.,151F.2d240(3dCir.1945).

PleadingsofthePlaintiffSHALLNOTBEdismissedforlackofformorfailureof
process.

Allthepleadingsareasanyreasonableman/womanwouldunderstand,and:"Andbeit
furtherenacted.Thatnosummons,writ,declaration,return,process,judgment,orother
proceedingsincivilcasesinanyofthecourtsortheUnitedStates,shallbeabated,
arrested,quashedorreversed,foranydefectorwantofform,butthesaidcourts
respectivelyshallproceedandgivejudgmentaccordingastherightofthecauseand
matterinlawshallappearuntothem,withoutregardinganyimperfections,defectsor
wantofforminsuchwrit,declaration,orotherpleading,returnsprocess,judgment,or
courseofproceedingwhatsoever,exceptthoseonlyincasesofdemurrer,whichthe
partydemurringshallspeciallysitdownandexpresstogetherwithhisdemurrerasthe
causethereof.

Andthesaidcourtsrespectivelyshallandmay,byvirtueofthisact,fromtimetotime,
amendallandeverysuchimperfections,defectsandwantsofform,otherthanthose
onlywhichthepartydemurringshallexpressasaforesaid,andmayatany,time,
permiteitherofthepartiestoamendanydefectintheprocessofpleadingsupon
suchconditionsasthesaidcourtsrespectivelyshallintheirdiscretion,andby
theirrulesprescribe(a)"JudiciaryActofSeptember24,1789,Section342,FIRST
CONGRESS,Sess.1,ch.20,1789.
17

18

GeneralAllegation/Background

I,PlaintiffCrystalL.Coxreallege,andfullyincorporateallpreviousparagraphs..

I,PlaintiffCrystalL.CoxAllegeasFollowsuponmyknowledgeandbelief

FalseandDefamatoryStatementswere,withoutadoubt,madebyDefendantsto
aThirdPartyConcerningPlaintiffandhavecausedPlaintiffCrystalCoxharm.
ThereforePlaintiffCoxisentitledtorecovery.

FalseandDefamatoryStatements,PlaintiffCoxalleges

FalseandDefamatoryStatementsmadebyDefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbes

Inc.toathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCox.

AllegationsofFalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdpartyconcerning
PlaintiffCrystalCoxbyDefendantHill,DefendantForbes.

DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbesstated

CoxwasunabletomakemuchheadwayinruininghisGooglesearchresultswithher
domainnamebuyingandblogging.SoshemovedontoRandazzasfamilymembers
whodidnothavemuchonlinecontentassociatedwiththeirnames.Sheboughtthe
domainnameforMarcswife,JenniferRandazza(andhasalreadystarteddominating
herfirstpageofGoogleresultswithherhyperbolicposts).WhenRandazzastillwouldnt
buyherservicesCoxmovedontoayoungermemberofthefamily:

DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbeshaspostedthisfalseanddefamatory
statementtothirdpartiesconcerningPlaintiffCox.DefendantKashmirHill,Defendant
Forbeshasnowaytoprovethisstatementtrue,asPlaintiffCoxwasneverattemptingto
ruiningDefendantMarcRandazzasGoogleSearch.PlaintiffCoxwasfightingback,as
shewasbeingattackedbyDefendantMarcRandazzaandnumerousattorneyblogger
attackingherreputationonline,defamingher,harassingherandthreateningher.
PlaintiffCoxwasexercisingherrighttoFreeSpeechandcriticizingDefendantMarc
18

19

Randazza.PlaintiffCox,neverpostedinformationregardingDefendantMarcRandazza
oranyoneelseandaskedformoneytoremoveit.ThisNEVERhappened,inanyway,
EVER.PlaintiffCoxneverthreatenedthatifDefendantMarcRandazzadidnotbuyher
services,shewouldretaliate,andmoveontoayoungermemberofthefamily.Plaintiff
Coxneverhadablogregardingayoungermemberofthefamily.PlaintiffCoxhas
everFirstAmendmentrighttocriticizeJenniferRandazza.

DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbespublishedtheabovefalseanddefamatory
statementtothirdpartiesconcerningPlaintiffCoxwithtotaldisregardforthetruth,and
seemingly,nofactcheckingwhatsoever.

DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbesstated
Coxisanoutlier.Hertacticsareextremeones.Butwedonowliveinaworldwhere
moneycanbemadefromruiningreputationsandthenofferingtofixthem.Inthe
businessworldthereisRipOffReport.com,asitethathostsnegativereviewsof
businessesandoffersapaidambassadorprogramtothosebusinessestohelpthem
improvethereviewsonthesite.Theresalsoaseriesofsitesthatdiguppeoplesmug
shotsfrompublicrecordsandpostthemsothattheyappearinthosepeoplessearch
resultstheythenoffertotakethemdownforafee.
Howdowedrawthelinebetweenspeechrightsanddigitalformsofextortion?Itisnota
newquestionforusintheInternetage,butitremainsanunansweredone.
DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbesinsinuatesunlawfultacticsthatdonotexist
norhasPlaintiffCoxeverbeenunderinvestigationorconvictedofsuchtactics.
FalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCrystal
CoxbyDefendantKashmirHill,DefendantKevinPadrick

CoxcontactedObsidianandofferedthemreputationservices.Padricksentalonga
copyofanemailthatCoxsenttohisattorney:

19

20

AfterafailedattempttogettheOregonAttorneyGeneraltoinvestigateCox,
ObsidianfiledadefamationcaseinJanuary2011,
UponknowledgeandbeliefofPlaintiffCrystalCox,DefendantKevinPadrick,made
falseanddefamatorystatementstothirdparty,DefendantKashmirHill,Defendant
ForbesregardingPlaintiffCrystalCoxandanOregonAttorneyGeneralInvestigation.

DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbesthenmadefalseanddefamatorystatements
concerningPlaintiffCoxbeinginvestigatedbytheOregonAttorneyGeneraltoathird
party.Thishascausedirreparableharm,stress,andglobalretaliationagainstPlaintiff
Cox.Andhastherebyputherunderconstantattacks,harassment,threatsand
retaliationandhasruinedherlife.Eachdayorweek,anewonlinemediasourcepicks
20

21

uptheinformationfromthefalseanddefamatorystatementstothirdparty,Defendant
KashmirHill,DefendantForbesconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCox
UponknowledgeandbeliefofPlaintiffCrystalCox,Defendant(attorney)KevinPadrick,
madefalseanddefamatorystatementstothirdparty,DefendantKashmirHill,
DefendantForbesregardingPlaintiffCrystalCoxallegedlyofferingreputationservices
tohim,throughhisattorney,DefendantDavidAman.DefendantKevinPadricksenta
partialeMail,infalselighttoentrapPlaintiffCrystalCoxforthecrimeofextortion,there
were5emailsandtheemailshownabovewasadirectRESPONSEfromPlaintiffCox
inregardtoacommunicationFROMDefendantKevinPadricksattorneyDefendant
DavidAman.AndtheabovepartialeMailwassentamonthafteralegalthreat
communication,andaftera10milliondollarlawsuitwasfiledagainstPlaintiffCrystal
Cox.TheeMailwasaprivatecommunicationbetweencounsel,asPlaintiffCrystalCox
wasactinginherProSemannerandDefendantDavidAmanwastheattorneyofrecord
forDefendantKevinPadrickinthismanner.
TheemailhadthefollowingTonkonTorp,DavidS.AmanDisclaimer,ofwhichPlaintiff
CrystalCoxbelievedandreliedoninherRESPONSEtoDefendantDavidAmans
communication:
Theinformationcontainedinthisemailmessagemaybeprivileged,confidential,and
protectedfromdisclosure.Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,anydissemination,
distribution,orcopyingisstrictlyprohibited.Ifanyportionofthiscommunicationis
interpretedasprovidingfederaltaxadvice,TreasuryRegulationsrequirethatweinform
youthatweneitherintendednorwrotethiscommunicationforyoutouseinavoiding
federaltaxpenaltiesthattheIRSmayattempttoimposeandthatyoumaynotuseitfor
suchpurpose.Ifyouthinkyouhavereceivedthisemailmessageinerror,please
emailthesenderatdavid.aman@tonkon.com

DefendantDavidAmandidnottreattheemailswithcare,confidentiality,norprotect
themfromdisclosure.DefendantDavidAmanmisleadPlaintiffCrystalCox,andused
partial,privatecommunicationsinordertopaintPlaintiffCrystalCoxinfalselight,
defameher,harassher,andruinherlifeandbusiness.AlsonotethatDefendantDavid
Aman,DefendantKevinPadrickgavethisemailtoDefendantKashmirHill,Defendant
Forbes,aftertheyalreadyreceiveda$2.5milliondollarjudgementagainstPlaintiffCox.
TherebyinsuringthatPlaintiffCoxslifeandwaytomakealivingwouldberuined,in
defamatoryretaliation.Thiswaswhistleblowerretaliationandwasunnecessarytothe
caseinanyway,asDefendantDavidAman,DefendantKevinPadrick,Defendant
21

22

KashmirHill,andDefendantForbes,clearlyknewthetruthBEFOREtheymaliciously
defamed,attacked,harassed,endangeredandretaliatedagainstPlaintiffCoxby
publishingfalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningPlaintiffCox,toathirdparty.
OnDecember11,2011,DefendantDavidCarrpublishedaNewYorkTimesArticletitled,"When
TruthSurvivesFreeSpeech".InregardtoPlaintiffCox,DefendantDavidCarrstated,

"ShesaidsheremainedconvincedthatMr.Padrickwouldbeindicted,evenifIhaveto
stayonitforthenextdecade.But,asForbesfirstpointedoutfollowingtheverdict,
shehadbeenwillingtonegotiateaceasefire."

TherebyprovingthatForbesknewthattheeMailwasawayforCoxtoshowwillingness
toendthelitigationandtonegotiateaceasefire,anotherwordstoSTOPa10million
dollarlawsuitagainstherfrommovingforward.YetDefendantDavidCarrandDefendant
KashmirHillstillinsinuatedandflatoutaccusedPlaintiffCoxofextortion,whichisacrime,and
didso,basedonthatsameemailandsetoffactstheyalreadyadmittedtoknowing.

DefendantDavidCarrinterviewedPlaintiffCoxandknewthatCoxclaimedtheemailwasin
responsetowhatattorneyDefendantDavidAmanhadsenther.YetDefendantDavidAmanlied
toDefendantDavidCarrandCarrbelievedAmanoverPlaintiffCox,thoughthefactswereeasy
toseewhentheemailswerereadincontext.ItisaaneasilyPROVENfactthatPlaintiffCox
sentthateMailinreplytoanemailfromDefendantDavidAman,anemailthreateningalawsuit.
Andanemailsentafterthatlegalthreatwasputintoactionina10MillionDollarDefamation
LawsuitagainstCox.

Defendant(attorney)MarcRandazza,madefalseanddefamatorystatementsto
thirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCox.
UponknowledgeandbeliefofPlaintiffCrystalCox,Defendant(attorney)Marc
Randazza,madefalseanddefamatorystatementstothirdpartyconcerningPlaintiff
CrystalCox,DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbesregardinghisbeingextortedby
PlaintiffCox,regardingablogabouta3yearoldthatneverexisted.
SeeExhibitG,ArticleTitled"UglyNewReputationSmearingTactic:GoingAfterA
Toddler'sInternetFootprint",Dated,04/02/12
"ApparentlyIwasnotsufficientlythreatenedbythistactic,soCoxwentontoregister:
fuckmarcrandazza.com,marcrandazzasucks.com,marcjrandazza.com,
marcjohnrandazza.com,ShealsoregisteredagreatmanyBloggeraccountsbearingmy

22

23

name,includingmarkrandazza.blogger.com.
PlaintiffCrystalCoxwasnotthreateningDefendantMarcRandazza,norwasPlaintiff
CrystalCoxusinganyalleged,tactic.PlaintiffCrystalCoxsimplyaskedherformer
attorneyifheknewanyonethatwouldhireherformarketing,andhewentintoarage
andretaliationcampaigninbigmedia,courtdocuments,radioandonlinemediainorder
todefame,harass,threaten,anddiscreditPlaintiffCox.
PlaintiffCrystalCoxhaseverylawfulandconstitutionalrighttocriticizeherformer
attorneyDefendantMarcRandazza.PlaintiffCoxneveraskedformoneytoremove
onlinecommentandPlaintiffCrystalCoxnevertoldDefendantMarcRandazza,or
insinuatedthatshewouldpostfalsestatementsifhedidnothireherservices.
DefendantMarcRandazzaandDefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbespaintedthis
picture,publishedthesefalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningPlaintiffCrystal
Coxtotheworldthroughvariousmediumsofcommunication.
ExhibitGstates,..PerhapsduetothenegativeattentionCoxtookdownthecontent
shehadstartedpublishingonthenataliarandazza.comsite.DefendantMarcRandazza
statedthisfalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCoxtoDefendant
KashmirHill,DefendantForbes.
DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbesthenstatedthisfalseanddefamatory
statementconcerningPlaintiffCoxtothirdparties.ThisstatementisFALSEandthereis
nowaytoproveittrue,asPlaintiffCoxneverhadcontentonthatdomainname,
especiallynegativeattentionregardinga3yearold.Itishardtoimagine,orformeto
haveevenfullyunderstandatthemomentIreadthisarticle,astowhattollitwouldtake
onmylife.I,PlaintiffCrystalCox,foundthatmylifetimefriends,thepersonIloved
dearlyandwasinarelationshipwithatthetime,myfamily,myclients,onlinemedia,
blogs,bigmedia,radio,andpeopleandmediumsofcommunicationaroundtheworld
believedthatIhadtargetedathreeyearoldandthatIhadpostedhateabouta
toddler.
Thebacklashthiscreatedinmylifeiswithoutthewordstoexpressitsdepthofhate,
harassment,andretaliationagainstme,PlaintiffCrystalCoxonaDailyBasis.Andthis
isfalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCoxtothirdpartieswerenottrue,
andnotevenbasedintruth.Thislie,thisfalsestatementwithtotaldisregardforthe
23

24

truth,ruinedmylifeinunimaginableways.
DefendantMarcRandazzastatedthisfalseanddefamatorystatementconcerning
PlaintiffCox,regardingthisattackonathreeyearold,toDefendantKashmirHill,
DefendantForbes.DefendantKashmirHillthenpublishedthistotheworldinamajor
mediaoutletknownbyeveryhousehold,worldwide,DefendantForbes.Defendant
KashmirHilldidnotquestionGodaddyfordomaininformation,didnotquestionPlaintiff
Cox,didnothaveanyproofatallthatsuchablogexisted,yetwentaheadandposted
falseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCoxtotheWorld.
DaysafterDefendantKashmirHillpublishedthefalseanddefamatorystatements,on
April6th2012,DefendantBobGarfieldinterviewedDefendantMarcRandazzaon
DefendantwNYC,DefendantNewYorkPublicRadio.Theshowwascalled
COMBATING"BAD"SPEECHWITHMORESPEECH,Dated,April06,2012.
DefendantOntheMedia,asExhibitsshow.

DefendantBobGarfieldandDefendantMarcRandazzastatedfalseanddefamatory
statementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCox.DefendantBobGarfieldand
DefendantMarcRandazzaaccusedPlaintiffCoxofattackingachildonline,ofbeing
guiltyofextortion,andallmannerofunethicalandcriminalactivity.Ofwhichwasnot
true.ThesefalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCoxin
thisworldwidemediumofcommunicationhascausedPlaintiffCoximmeasurable,
irreparabledamage.

ItisafactthatPlaintiffCrystalCoxneverextortedDefendantMarcRandazza,anditisa
FACTthatPlaintiffCox,neverhadablogpostingnegativeremarksofanykind
regardinga3yearold.
DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbes,intheabovestatements,makesitseemas
ifPlaintiffCoxdoesthissamething,postsnegativereviewsandfalsehoodsandthen
offerstotakethemdownforafee.PlaintiffCoxneverdidthistoDefendantMarc
Randazza,nortoanyoneelse,EVER.YetDefendantHillispublishingthisfalseand
defamatorystatementaccusingPlaintiffCoxofHabitualConduct.
DefendantKevinPadrick,insinuatesthatPlaintiffCoxpostednegativeinformationand
falsehoodsabouthim,andthenofferedtotaketheinformationdownforafee.Whenthe
truthis,ifthiscourtreviewsallthefacts,itiseasytoseethattheemailthatDefendant
DavidAmansendtoDefendantKevinPadrick,whothensentthisinformationto
24

25

DefendantKashmirHill,wasanemailsentinDIRECTresponse,aREPLYtoanemail
senttoPlaintiffCrystalCoxbyDefendantDavidAmanonbehalfofhisclientDefendant
KevinPadrick(Note,bothAmanandPadrickareOregonAttorneysthatwereinvolved
inthe$40milliondollarbankruptcyscandalthatbloggerCoxwasreportingon.)The
emailsendtoCoxbyAmanonbehalfofPadrick,wasalegalTHREAT.25dayslater
DefendantDavidAmanonbehalfofhisclientDefendantKevinPadrickfileda10million
dollarlawsuit,afterthisPlaintiffCoxsenttheemailtonegotiateasettlement.Defendant
KashmirHillandotherdefendantsmadethisemaillooktobeextortion,whichwasnot
basedinfactualevidence.
DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbesmakesitseemasifDefendantCoxposted
DefamatoryinformationbecausePadrickrefusedtopayforherservices.
DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbeswasreportingontheObsidianFinance
Groupv.CrystalCoxdefamationtrial,wherebyPlaintiffCoxreceiveda$2.5million
dollarjudgementagainsther.PlaintiffCoxwasontrialforablogpostdatedDecember
25th2010.PlaintiffCoxwasnotontrialforextortion,norwereemailsorextortion
allegationsmaterialfactorsinthiscase.
Yet,maliciously,negligently,irresponsibly,DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbes
published/reportedonanemailsentbetweencounsel(CoxbeingProSe),amonth
aftertheblogpostthatCoxwasontrialfor.Thepartial,outofcontext,emailthat
DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbespublishedwasunnecessarytothestory,and
wasnotamaterialfactorofthecase.DefendantHillsimplypostedthispartialemailin
ordertodefame,discredit,harassandattackPlaintiffCox,withtotaldisregardtothe
factsofthecaseortheissueshewasreportingon.
Thetruthis,theemailwasacommunicationbetweenpartiesofa10milliondollar
litigation,andwaspartofoneemail,outof5emailssentafteralegalthreatandaftera
lawsuitwasfiledAGAINSTCox.
Incontext,withtheENTIREreplyemail,andthesurroundingemails,itclearlyshows
thatCoxflatoutstatedshewouldnotremoveinformationandthattheemailwassimply
anegotiationofceasefireinordertogetattorneysDavidAmanandKevinPadrickto
STOPa10milliondollarlitigation.Itwasasettlementoffer,AFTERalegalthreatand
wasAFTERa10milliondollarlawsuitwasfiledagainstCoxbythepartiesinvolvedin
25

26

theeMail.
PlaintiffCoxisanAntiCorruptionBloggerandhadbeenreportingontheunethical
practicesofDefendantDavidAmanandDefendantKevinPadrickfor3yearsprior.
PlaintiffCoxnever,EVER,postedastory,piece,blogpostinordertogetpaidtotakeit
down.PlaintiffCoxremains,tothisday,dedicatedtoreportingonthedetailsofthat
bankruptcyinordertobringjusticeandtransparencytotheU.S.bankruptcycourts.

BeitDefamationbyInsinuationorflatoutmaliciousdefamationwithknowledgeofthe
facts,DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbeshastheworldbelievingthatPlaintiff
Coxusingherpowerfulinternetmarketingskillstoattacktheonlinereputationofa3
yearoldandtopublishbad,negative,orfalseinformationandthenaskforafeeto
removeit.PlaintiffCrystalCoxhasneverdonethis,beeninvestigatedforsuch
extortionarypractices,noreverconvictedofsuchcrimes.
DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbeshaspublishedfalseanddefamatory
statementtothirdpartiesconcerningPlaintiffCox,andisliableforthedamagethey
havecausedPlaintiffCoxover17monthsandcounting.
AlsoonApril6th,2012,DefendantBobGarfieldinterviewedTrevorTimmofEFF.The
showwascalledAProblematicTestCaseforBloggersasJournalists.
Inthisinterview,DefendantBobGarfieldheardTrevorTimmspeakofthefactthatthe
Obsidianv.CoxtrialwasaboutONEBlogPostdatedDecember25th,2010.Yet
DefendantBobGarfieldpublishedfalseanddefamatoryallegationsinregardingto
PlaintiffCoxbeingguiltyofextortion,orsometacticinwhichwasextortionary.And
DefendantBobGarfield,alongwithDefendantMarcRandazzapublishedfalseand
defamatorytoathirdpartyregardingPlaintiffCox,thatclaimedthatPlaintiffCoxhad
beeninvolvedinsomesortofongoingshakedown,orextortionracket,andthat
DefendantMarcRandazzawasoneofhervictims.However,thiswasnotfactual,inany
waywhatsoever.ItwasFALSEandDefamatoryconcerningPlaintiffCox,andtherefore
PlaintiffCoxisentitledtorecoverofdamagescausedbythesefalseanddefamatory
statementstoathirdparty,accusingCoxofcriminalactivityofwhichshehadnot
participatedin,wasnotunderinvestigationforandhadnotbeenconvictedofinacourt

26

27

oflaw.
AllegationsofFalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxmadebyDefendantMarcRandazza.
DefendantMarcRandazza,formerattorneytoPlaintiffCrystalCox,wentona17month
andcounting,retaliationanddefamatoryattackonhisformerclientPlaintiffCrystalCox
randazza.wordpress.com,TitledJudgerules,again,thatbloggerCrystalCoxis
notajournalist.Youknowwhy?BecausesheISNTajournalist.,datedMarch
30th,2012

AccordingtoKash,PadricksfirmfoundthatCoxhadcreatednearly2,000websites
usedtowriteaboutothercompanies.PadrickthensaidthatCoxattemptedtoofferher
PRandsearchengineservicesinordertofixObsidianFinancesreputation.Sortof
likeaprotectionracket.
ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.Itisamalicious
statementasCoxofferedPRinasettlementnegotiation.Thiswas3yearsaftershe
startedreportingonPadrickandafterPadricksuedCox.Coxneverofferdtofix
Obsidiansreputationnorremoveblogposts,assurroundingemailsshow.PlaintiffCox
wasDefendantRandazzasattorneyatonepointandDefendantRandazzahascopies
ofALLemailsinthatthread,andhasdeliberatelypostedfalseanddefamatory
informationconcerningCoxwithknowledgeofthefacts.

DefendantRandazzaisinviolationoflawinhismaliciousretaliatorydefamation.

Themessagewasclear.Shameaboutyourmessedupreputation.Icanfixitforyou.
NevermindthatImtheonewhomesseditup.
ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.Thisisdefamationby
insinuationandfromadefamationlawyerspecializinginthisfieldandthereforehavinga
greaterdutyofcaretospeakthetruth.Especiallyalawyerwhooncerepresented
PlaintiffCoxandhadALLherfiles,emailsanddocumentsconcerningtheObsidian
case,includingemails.
HernandezreasonedinhisopinionthatCoxdidnotqualifyasajournalist.Gofigure,
27

28

giventhefactthatherwritingisbarelycomprehensible.Theonlythingclearaboutitis
thatshedoesnotseemtowriteasajournalistoranessayist,butmoreasan
extortionisttryingtohideamongthebloggers.
ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.DefendantRandazza
againinsinuatesthatPlaintiffCoxisanextortionistandrepeatedlyslamshisformer
clientandpublishesfalsestatements.
DefendantMarcRandazzashouldhaveahigherdegreeofcare,asDefendant
RandazzawasPlaintiffCoxsattorneyandknewthefacts,andDefendantMarc
RandazzaknewthatObsidianv.CoxwasaCivilTrial,yetDefendantMarcRandazza
publishedfalseandmisleadingstatementconcerningPlaintiffCoxtoathirdparty,
knowingfullwellthatPlaintiffCoxwasnotontrialfor,convictedof,orevenunder
investigationforbeinganextortionist.
PlaintiffCoxneverreceivedmoneytoremoveblogposts,neveraskedtobepaidto
removeblogposts,andneverpostedinvestigativebloggingonanyone,inordertolater
askforpaymentofanykind.ThisisFALSEandDefamatory,andhasledto
immeasurable,irreparabledamagetothelife,business,qualityoflifeandinterpersonal
relationshipsofPlaintiffCrystalCox.
DefendantMarcRandazzaclaimsthatPlaintiffCoxextortedhimtoo,justasshedid
Padrick.YetCrystalCoxhadextortednoone,wasnotunderinvestigationforextortion
norwasCoxconvictedofextortion.ThereforeallstatementsthatPlaintiffCoxisan
extortionistorextortedDefendantMarcRandazzaorDefendantKevinPadrickARE,
withoutadoubt,defamatoryandfalsestatementwithactualmalice,actualknowledgeof
thefacts.
IfDefendantMarcRandazza,DefendantDavidAmanorDefendantKevinPadrickfelt
thathadbeenvictimsofthecrimeofextortion,thenasattorneys,whichall3ofthem
are,theywouldknowhowtofileacriminalcomplaintandthereforeallowPlaintiffCox
dueprocessoflawinthecriminaljusticesystem.HoweverthatisnotwhatDefendant
MarcRandazza,DefendantDavidAmanorDefendantKevinPadrickdid.
InsteadDefendantMarcRandazza,DefendantDavidAman,DefendantKevinPadrick
statedthesefalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningPlaintiffCoxtothirdparty
DefendantForbes,DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantDavidCoursey,DefendantBob
28

29

Garfield,DefendantNPR,DefendantKennethWhite,DefendantDavidCarr,Defendant
NewYorkTimes,DefendantPhillyLawBlogsDefendantJordanRushie,Defendant
PeterL.Michaelson,DefendantWIPO,andDefendant125JohnandJaneDoes.Who
thenstatedthesefalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningPlaintiffCoxtothird
party(theWorld),viaanInternationalWIPOpublication,NewYorkTimesarticles,NPR
radioshows,Forbesnewsarticles,legalblogsandmore.

DefendantMarcRandazza,publishedthefollowingfalseanddefamatorystatement
regardingPlaintiffCox,onTheLegalSatyricon,hisblog,inanarticletitledCarlosMiller
onCrystalCox,dated,April2nd2012,asshowninExhibits,Hereisthestatement:

HewroteabouttheCrystalCoxextortioncasebackinDecember,andImissedthe
story.Hesdoneasgoodajobasanyone,ifnotbetter,inshowinghowthisisnota
bloggersvs.journalistsstoryatall.

DefendantMarcRandazzastatedthattheCrystalCoxwasacaseofextortion.
DefendantMarcRandazzastated,theCrystalCoxextortioncaseonhisattorney,legal
commentaryblog.DefendantMarcRandazzaisanattorneyandhasagreater
obligationtothepublicofcare,duty,andnegligence.

ExtortionisCriminal.StatingtheCrystalCoxextortioncaseimpliesthatPlaintiffCrystal
CoxwasontrialforandconvictedoftheCRIMEofExtortion.WheninTRUTH,Plaintiff
CrystalCoxwasontrialfordefamationinacivilcase.PlaintiffCoxwasnotunder
investigationofextortion,wasnotinvolvedinaCrystalCoxextortioncaseandhadnot
beeneverconvictedofthecrimeofextortion.

Asanattorneyoflaw,DefendantMarcRandazzaknewthisandyetknowinglyposted
falseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningCrystalCoxtoathirdparty.

Also,asagreaterdegreeofcare,negligence,breachofduty,breachofconfidentiality,
anddeliberatelypostingfalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningCrystalCoxtoa
thirdparty,withactualknowledgeofthefacts,DefendantMarcRandazzawasacting
asPlaintiffCoxsAttorneyinDecemberof2011.DefendantRandazzahadaphone
conferencewithPlaintiffCox,andwasgivenALLfilespertainingtotheObsidianv.Cox
Case.DefendantRandazzawasnegotiatingadealwithDefendantDavidAmanand
DefendantKevinPadrickinthiscase.DefendantMarcRandazzaknewfullwellthatit
wasaciviltrialandthatitwasinregardtodefamationandONEblogpost.Andthat
Obsidianv.CoxwasNOTacriminaltrialandwasnotatrialaboutextortion.Defendant
MarcRandazzapostedthisfalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningCrystalCoxto
29

30

athirdpartymaliciously,deliberatelyandwithabsoluteknowledgethatiswasfalseand
defamatory.

DefendantMarcRandazza,publishedthefollowingfalseanddefamatorystatement
regardingPlaintiffCox,onTheLegalSatyricon,hisblog,inanarticletitled"How
CrystalCoxishelpingtoprovethestrengthoftheFirstAmendment",dated,March
31st,2012,asshowninExhibits,Hereisthestatement:

"Thecampaignisnowaboutexposinghersothatshecantengageinherextortion
schemeagainstanyoneelse.Popehatisleadingthecharge,andnaturally,theLegal
SatyriconisnexttoPopehat,shieldstoshoulders.Sequence,Inc.ispartofthesolution
too,byexposingtheattacksonKevinPadrick,andshiningalightonCoxswidespread
extortionscheme,soisPhillyLawBlog,andbeforeanyofthelawbloggercommunity
jumpedonthebandwagon,SaltyDroidwasoutthereallbyhimself,shiningalittlelight"

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.Defendant
RandazzafalselystatesthathisformerclientPlaintiffCoxisandhasengagedin
extortion,andisinvolvedinaanextortionscheme,whichisacrime.

AllegationsofFalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxmadebyDefendantDavidCarr

DefendantDavidCarrinterviewPlaintiffCoxandDefendantKevinPadrick,andonDecember
11,2011,DefendantDavidCarrpublishedaNewYorkTimesArticletitled,"WhenTruth
SurvivesFreeSpeech".

"ShesaidsheremainedconvincedthatMr.Padrickwouldbeindicted,evenifIhaveto
stayonitforthenextdecade.But,asForbesfirstpointedoutfollowingtheverdict,she
hadbeenwillingtonegotiateaceasefire.

AtthisPointinmyLifeitisTimetoThinkofMe,shewroteinalettertoMr.Padricks
lawyer,DavidAman.SoIwanttoLetyouknowandObsidianFinancethatIamnow
offeringPRServicesandSearchEngineManagementServicesstartingat$2,500a
month,shewrote,topromoteLawFirmsandFinanceCompaniesandtoprotect
onlinereputationsandpromotebusinesses.

30

31

Whatlookedtobeanunsubtleoffertoholsterherguninexchangeforapayoffwas
signed,InLoveandLight,CrystalCox.

Ms.CoxsaidthatshesentthatnoteinresponsetoarequestfromMr.Padricks
attorneyMr.Amansaidhemadenosuchinquiryandthatshewasnotontrialfor
writingemails."
ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.
AllegationsofFalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxmadebyDefendantTracyCoenen
DefendantTracyCoenenArticleTitled"mArcRaNdaZzatAkeSbACkHisNAmE",
datedFebruary2nd,2013.
HebrieflyagreedtorepresentCrystalCox,thenshechangedhermind,gotangrywith
Marc,anddecidedtoregisterabunchofdomainnamesusingMarcRandazzasname.
ThensheofferedRandazzareputationmanagementservices(i.e.paymeamonthly
fee,orelse).Whenhedidnotagreetopayher,Coxbeganpostingdefamatorycontent
abouthimonmultiplewebsites.ThisisntthefirsttimeCoxhasdonethis,andtherest
oftheworldrecognizesthisasextortion.
DefendantTracyCoenenobviouslyknowsthatPlaintiffCoxwasrepresentedinalegal
matterbyDefendantRandazza,beitbriefornot,representationisrepresentation,and
asafraudanalystDefendantTracyCoenenhasaheightenedsenseofdutyofcareto
findthefactsofthesemattersbeforepostingfalseanddefamatorystatements
concerningPlaintiffCrystalCox.
DefendantTracyCoenenadmitstothefactthatRandazzarepresentedCox,and
PlaintiffCoxchangedhermindandbecomeupsetwithMarc.Indeed,IPlaintiffCox
did,asDefendantRandazzawasnegotiatingadealwithDefendantAmanand
DefendantPadrick,onmyallegedbehalf,ofwhichIknewnothingabout.Myblogswere
tocriticizeaformerattorneyfortreatingmebadly,andtoexercisemyFirstAmendment
rightandNOTtoextortmyexattorney.
DefendantTracyCoenensaysthatPlaintiffCoxregistereddomainnamesinorderto
laterdemandthatDefendantMarcRandazzapayforreputationservicesorelse.This
31

32

defamationbyinsinuationisfalseanddefamatoryconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxand
ispublishedtoathirdparty.DefendantTracyCoenen,beingafraudinvestigator,and
knowledgeableinwhitecollarcrime,isevenmorenegligentthanmostinclaimingthat
PlaintiffCoxhadengagedinillegalactivities.DefendantTracyCoenenpublishedthese
falsestatementknowingtheywerefalse,asitwasclearthatPlaintiffCoxhadnotbeen
underinvestigationofextortionorconvictedofextortion.
Libelbyimplicationoccurswhenadefendant(1)juxtaposesaseriesoffactstoasto
implyadefamatoryconnectionbetweenthem,or(2)createsadefamatoryimplication
eventhoughtheparticularfactsarecorrect.Toneyv.WCCO,85F.3d383(8thCir.
1996).DefendantTracyCoenenisguiltyofdefamationbyimplication,instatingieor
else.

Apublicationcanconveyafalseanddefamatorymeaningbyomittingorjuxtaposing
facts,eventhoughalloftheindividualstatementsconsideredinisolationareliterally
trueornondefamatory.Turnerv.KTRKTelevision,Inc.,38S.W.3d103(Tex.2000).

Implieddefamationoccurswhenapublicationstatesfactsthatareliterallytrue,but
producesadefamatorymeaningapparentfromaplainreadingofthepublicationinits
entirety.Chapinv.KnightRidder,Inc.,993F.2d1087(4thCir.1993)

DefendantTracyCoenenStated

CrystalCoxdidntonlylashoutatMarcRandazza.Shelashedoutathiswifeandtheir

threeyearolddaughter.RandazzaandhisfamilytookCoxtocourt,alleging
cyberpiracyandcybersquatting,amongotherthings.Inthemeantime,alistofdomain
namescontainingMarcRandazzasnameandregisteredbyCrystalCoxwereturned
overtoMarcRandazzapursuanttoanarbitrationdecisionbytheWorldIntellectual
PropertyOrganization(WIPO).TheWIPOdecisionstatedthatthedomainnameswere
registeredandusedinbadfaithbyCox,whowasattemptingtoextortRandazzaand
confuseconsumers.

DefendantTracyCoenenpublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerning
PlaintiffCoxtoathirdpartyinstatingthatPlaintiffCoxlashedoutatathreeyearold.
TheFactisthatPlaintiffCoxnever,EVER,postedanythingregardingthisthreeyear
old.DefendantTracyCoenenknowinglypublishedthisharassing,retaliatory,falseand
defamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.

32

33

DefendantTracyCoenenpublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementsin
concerningPlaintiffCoxbeingguiltyofextortion.

DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbespublishedanemailfromPlaintiffCoxto
DefendantDavidAman,andaccusedPlaintiffCoxofExtortion,whichiscriminal.

DefendantMarcRandazzaalsotoldDefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbesthat
PlaintiffCoxhadextortedhim.DefendantDavidCarr,DefendantNewYorkTimesthen
publishedthesefalseanddefamatorystatementsaccusingPlaintiffCoxofthecrime
extortion.DefendantMarcRandazzathentooktheDefendantDavidCarrsfalseand
defamatorystatements,andthefalseanddefamatorystatementsofDefendantKashmir
Hill,DefendantForbesandfiledacomplaintwithDefendantWIPOusingtheForbesand
NewYorkTimesarticlesasproofofPlaintiffCoxbeingGUILTYofextortion.Defendant
MarcRandazzaclaimedtoWIPOthatPlaintiffCoxwasguiltyofextortion,hadextorted
him,andhadapatternandhistoryofextortion.ThoughPlaintiffCoxhadnotbeenunder
investigationforextortion,ontrialforextortion,norEVERconvictedofthecrimeof
extortion.

DefendantPeterL.Michaelson,PanelistforDefendantWIPOthenissuedan
internationalWIPOpublicationinwhichpublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementstoa
thirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxandaccusingherofthecrimeofextortion.

Then,DefendantTracyCoenenpublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementstoathird
partyconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxandthefalseanddefamatorystatementsmadeby
DefendantPeterL.Michaelson.TheWIPOdecisionstatedthatthedomainnames
wereregisteredandusedinbadfaithbyCox,whowasattemptingtoextortRandazza
andconfuseconsumers.

DefendantTracyCoenenarticletitled,"StoppingCrystalCoxsHarassmentand
Extortion"dated7December2012.

OntopofthisarticleisacopyrightedpictureofPlaintiffCrystalCoxtakenbyDefendant
TracyCoenenandonthepictureofPlaintiffCrystalCoxsfact,thewordsread
ExtortionistCrystalCox,theJPEGfileistitled,crystalcoxbloggerextortion,andis
therebypickedupbythesearchengineassuch.

ThepictureisdefamatoryandfalsestatementsmadetoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiff
33

34

CoxandthereforeDefendantTracyCoenenisliablefordamagestoPlaintiffCrystal
Cox.

FalseandDefamatoryStatementmadebyDefendantTracyCoenen

SheofferedRandazzareputationmanagementservices,wherebyshewouldrefrain
frompostingdefamatorythingsabouthimonherwebsitesifRandazzapaidher
enough.That,myfriends,isextortion.

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.PlaintiffCoxdidnot
statetoDefendantRandazzathatifhepaidhershewouldrefrainfromposting
defamatorystatements,thisisnottrue.TracyCoenenflatoutclaimsthatPlaintiffCoxis
guiltyofextortion.TracyCoenenisafraudanalystandhasagreaterdutyofcareto
PlaintiffCox.

FalseandDefamatoryStatementmadebyDefendantTracyCoenen

FirstshestartedherextortionplotagainstRandazza,askinghimtopayheralarge
sumofmoney,andpostingdefamatorycontentonmarcrandazza.comwhenherefused.
Coxthenregisteredatleast31moredomainnameswithallorpartofthenamesof
plaintiffs.Defamatorycontentwasaddedtothosewebsitesinanattempttodamage
Randazzasreputationandmisleadthosewhomightbeusingasearchenginetofind
MarcRandazza.
CrystalCoxspricetagtostoptheRandazzamadness?$5million.Andshetoldthe
publicthatshedkeepregisteringdomainnamesrelatedtoRandazzasnameunlessa
courtstoppedherfromdoingso.
MarcRandazzaandhisfamilyhavesuedtostopCoxfromcybersquattingviadomain
namesthatincludeRandazzasname.Andtheyhavenicelyoutlinedsomeofthe
interestingtacticsCoxhasusedtoterrorizethemandothers:
AsCoxtargetsmanyotherindividualswithherextortionscheme,theintentto
profitisclear.Cox,oninformationandbelief,whentargetingotherindividuals,shows
34

35

themwhatsheisdoingto[Randazza]andhisfamilyandusesthisasabasistoextract
orattempttoextractextortionfeesfromotherthirdparties.
RandazzaalsosaysthatCoxtriedtostophimfromtestifyinginadeposition
relatedtooneofthelawsuitsagainstCox.

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.Theabovequoteis
maliciouslyfalseanddefamatory.PlaintiffCoxdidnotaskformoneyfromRandazza.
PlaintiffCoxdidnotterrorizeRandazza.PlaintiffCoxexercisedherfirstamendment
righttocriticizeDefendantRandazza.Theabovestatementisfilledwithfalseand
defamatorystatementspublishedtoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCox.

FalseandDefamatoryStatementmadebyDefendantTracyCoenen

DefendantTracyCoenenarticletitled,CrystalCox:StillanExtortionist
6December2012.

Youmayrecallthatearlierthisyear,CrystalCoxwasuptoheroldtricksofdefaming
peopleontheinternet,andofferingthemreputationmanagementservices,whereby
foranicesumofmoneyshewouldremovethenegativethingsshewroteaboutthose
individuals.
CoxwentafterMarcRandazzaafterbecomingangrywithhimoverhispotential
representationofherinanothercaseinvolvingextortion.Theoriginalcasewas
noteworthy,notsomuchbecauseitdemonstratedCoxsfondnessforattemptingto
destroyreputationsandthenofferingtorepairthosereputationsforalargesumof
money,butbecausethejudgeruledthatCrystalCoxisnotajournalist.(Thisisnotto
beconfusedwithbloggersarenotjournalists,whichsomepeopleincorrectlyreported
afterakeydecisioninthecase.ThedecisionwasonlythatbloggerCrystalCoxisnot
ajournalist.)
InattemptingtodestroyMarcRandazzasreputation,Coxboughtupabunchofdomain
namesassociatedwithhim,suchasmarcrandazza.com.Predictably,sheoffered
35

36

reputationmanagementservices,wherebyifMarcagreedtopayhereverymonth,she
wouldnotpostreputationdestroyingcontentabouthimonherwebsites.
CoxdeniedthatshewastryingtoextortmoneyfromRandazza,writingononeofher
sites(yes,thisisverbatim,oddcapitalizationandall):

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.

FalseandDefamatoryStatementmadebyDefendantTracyCoenen

AnarbitrationpanelissuedadecisioninfavorofMarcRandazza,andhasorderedthat
thedomainnamesmarcjohnrandazza.com,marcjrandazza.com,marcrandazza.com,
marcrandazza.biz,marcrandazza.infoandmarcrandazza.mobibetransferredtohim.
Inthatdecision,thearbitrationpaneldiscussestheextortionistactivitiesofCrystalCox
(emphasismine):

Suchwebsitesarenotcriticismsitesbutmerelyapretextfor[Cox]sbadfaith
extortionateuse.

[snip]

Third,[Cox]attemptedtocommerciallybenefitfromregistrationofthesenamesby
offeringreputationmanagementservicesto[Randazza]throughbaiting
[Randazza]intoanextortionatescheme.Specifically,once[Randazza]declined
herreputationmanagementservices,[Cox]thenregistereddomainnamesthat
containednotonly[Randazza]ssurname,butalsothepersonalnamesofhiswife
andthreeyearolddaughter,andthenincludedfalsehoodsabout[Randazza]onher
websitestowhichthedomainnamesresolved.[Cox]wouldtheneliminatesuch
sites,andhencetheensuinginjuryto[Randazza]sreputation,onlyif[Randazza]
wouldpurchaseherreputationmanagementservices.Further,[Cox]repeatedly
36

37

engagedinthesamegeneraltypeofextortionateconductbyofferingher
reputationmanagementservicestoothers,includingashertargetsvarious
businesspeopleandthirdpartyattorneys,thusreflectingapatternofsuchconduct.

[snip]

Furthermore,[Cox]sactionsinregisteringandusingthedisputeddomainnames
mayappear,atafirstglance,tosimplybeavehiclethroughwhichsheprovides
advertisingthroughpayperclicksites,butonslightlycloserexaminationareactually
componentsofanartificeintendedtoextortfundsfrom[Randazza]andthusa
pretextforaratheregregiousvariantofcybersquatting.Assuch,noneofthose
actionscanorwillserveasapredicateuponwhich[Cox]canlawfullydevelopany
rightsorlegitimateinterestsinanyofthedisputeddomainnames.

[snip]

Inanyevent,forpurposesofthePolicythePanelfinds[Cox]sintention,asreflected
bytherecord,wasnevertosolelyprovide,throughherwebsites,speechcriticalof
[Randazza].Rather,herobjectiveinbothregisteringandusingthedisputednames
wasapparentlytoengageinarathersinisterandtenaciousschemetoextortmoney
from[Randazza].Specifically,[Cox]firstpostednegativeandfalsecommentaryon
herwebsitesthatwasintentionallycalculatedtoinjure[Randazza]sonline
reputationanddisrupt[Randazza]sbusinessconductedthroughhislawfirm.
Thereafter,[Cox]usedthosesitesinamannerthatapparentlyoptimizedtheir
rankingontheGooglesearchengineinordertoincreasetheirvisibilityand
prominenceonsearchresultsyieldedthroughaGooglesearchof[Randazza],thus
likelyexacerbatingtheinjurycausedto[Randazza].Onceallthisoccurred,[Cox]
thenofferedherreputationalmanagementservicesto[Randazza]throughwhich,for
aconsiderablefee,shewouldremediate[Randazza]sonlinereputationby
eliminatingallthenegativeandfalsecommentaryofherownmakingand
presumablyalsoceasingheruseofthedisputeddomainnames.Basically,fora
37

38

price,shewouldundotheinjuryto[Randazza]forwhichshewasresponsiblefor
havingcreatedinthefirstplace.Thisegregiousconductclearlyconstitutesbadfaith
underthePolicy.

Sothereyouhaveit.AnotherdiscussionofCrystalCoxthatconcludesshewastryingto
extortpeople,notbeaninvestigativebloggerorreputationmanagerasshewould
haveyoubelieve.

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.Itisnotadefense
thatTracyCoenenrepublishedthesestatements,sheisliableforpostingfalseand
defamatorystatementsevenifshepoststhemfromanotherblog/website.

FalseandDefamatoryStatementmadebyDefendantTracyCoenen

DefendantTracyCoenenarticletitledCrystalCox,Extortionist?YouDecide
DatedApril4,2012

thestorybegantofocusonactsbyinvestigativebloggerCrystalCoxthatappearedtobe
extortionate.Namely,CoxsmearedKevinPadrickandObsidianFinanceusingdomainnames
likeobsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.comandkevinpadrick.com,thenofferedtoprovidethem
reputationmanagementservicesheimplicationwasclear:paymeintoinfinityandIwill
removewhatIpostedaboutyou.

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.

FalseandDefamatoryStatementmadebyDefendantTracyCoenen

DefendantTracyCoenenarticletitled,InvestigativeJournalistCrystalCoxAttacks
AttorneyKevinD.Padrick,DatedMarch31st2012.

Itgetsevenbetter.CrystalCoxthenattemptedtoextortKevinD.Padrickand
ObsidianFinancebyofferingtoprovideservicestoprotectonlinereputationsfora
feeof$2,500permonth.Translation:Paymetotakedownthedefamatory
38

39

material.

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.

CrystalCoxishellbentondestroyingpeoplewhodontgiveintoherwishes.Shehas
nowgoneafterMarcRandazza,anattorneyshebeggedtohelpherwithanappealin
theObsidiancase,evengoingafterMarcswifeandthreeyearolddaughter.This
tellsyouwhatkindofwomanwearedealingwith:CrystalCoxattackedMarcs
innocentwifeandthreeyearolddaughter.

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.Itisnota
defenseinacourtoflawtheDefendantMarcRandazzatoldherthisandshe
believeditandpostedit,itisfalseanddefamatory.

NorisitadefensethatDefendantKashmirHillpostedthatPlaintiffCoxhadablog
aboutathreeyearold,orattackeda3yearold.Theonlydefenseagainst
defamationisfact,andthereisnowaythatDefendantTracyCoenencanprovethat
PlaintiffCoxextortedDefendantRandazza,hadablogaboutathreeyearold,
attackedathreeyearold,wasinvolvedinashakedown,isanextortionist,orwason
trialforextortionasDefendantTracyCoenenstated/publishedtoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCox.

Repostingfalseanddefamatorystatementsisstilldefamation.

AllegationsofFalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxmadebyDefendantJordanRushie,Defendant
MulvihillandRushieLLC

39

40

ArticleonPhillyLawBlog,byJordanRushie,Titled"TheEvolutionofCrystalCox:
AnatomyofaScammer",dated,April3rd2012.
DefendantJordanRushie,DefendantMulvihillandRushieLLCFalseand
DefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdpartyconcerningCox.
"ThetrialtranscriptinObsidianv.Coxisalsonowavailable.Attrial,severalexpert
witnessestestifiedthatKevinPadrickactedentirelyappropriatelyintheSummit
bankruptcy.Padrickalsoexplainedthatwhenacompanygoesbankrupt,themoney
doesntgettaxedwhenitgoestothetrust.Thisisbecausetaxingthemoneywhenit
wentintothetrustwouldessentiallybetaxingSummitscreditors,whoarethevictims,
forthemisdeedsofSummit.Thetestimonywentuncontroverted."

Thisisfalseanddefamatory.Therewerenotseveralexpertwitnessesthatstatedthat
KevinPadrickactedentirelyappropriatelyintheSummitbankruptcy.Ina1031
exchangecompanythecreditorsmostcertainlydoowetaxiftheexchangeisnot
completedproperly.ThevictimswerepartiesinthemiddleofanIRScode1031
exchange,itwasALLataxbasedbusinessandtaxissue.DefendantJordanRushie
hasstatedfalsehoodsandpaintedPlaintiffCoxinfalseanddefamatorylight.

Alsoonemustnotethattherewereeternallyemailsbetweenmanyattorneys,andthe
DepartmentofJustice,inwhichmadetheallegationsoftaxissueswithnotpayingthe
taxesappropriateofa1031.

AlsonoteThetestimonywasalsonotuncontroverted,asI,PlaintiffCoxprovidedover
500documentsofproof.Thisisafalseanddefamatorystatementtoathirdparty
concerningCox.

CrystalL.Cox,Plaintiff,isaRealEstateBroker,essentiallyanexpertherselfona1031
Exchange.

DefendantJordanRushie,DefendantMulvihillandRushieLLCFalseand
DefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdpartyconcerningCox.

"ThisishowCrystalCoxsscamworksgenerally:Coxcallsherselfaninvestigative
40

41

blogger/journalist.Shepostsabunchofnegativestuffaboutyouontheinternet.Then
shebuysabunchofdomainnamesaboutyou,yourfamily,andyourbusinesstomake
sureallherpostsareatthetopofaGooglesearch.Butluckyforyou,Coxalso
happenstobeareputationmanagementspecialist.Coxthenofferstosellyou
reputationmanagementservicestocleanitalluptothetuneof$2500amonth.

AsCarlosMilleraptlyputit,CrystalCoxisthecyberequivalentofthemobgoonswho
firebombyourbusiness,beforedemandingprotectionmoney."
"YoumayrememberthatovertheweekendIwroteapieceaboutCrystalCox,when
CoxwentafterMarcRandazzasthreeyearolddaughterafterofferingtosellRandazza
reputationmanagementserviceswhichhedeclined.

Yes,youreadthatrightapparentlyCrystalCoxwentafterathreeyearoldwhen
Randazzawouldntbuyreputationmanagementservices."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.DefendantRushie
flatoutliesaboutPlaintiffCox.Coxhasneverofferedreputationservicesasan
extortionarytactic.PlaintiffCoxhasneveraskedforprotectionmoneynorwentaftera
threeyearold.ThisisfalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningPlaintiffCoxmade
toathirdpartybyDefendantJordanRushie.

"ThetruthisthatthisistheCrystalCoxisnotajournaliststorybecauseCoxtriedto
shakedownpeopledownandgotburnedforitcase."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.

DefendantJordanRushieisanattorney,andthereforehasagreaterdutyofcaretonot
misleadthepublicastowhattheObsidianv.Coxcasewasabout.DefendantJordan
RushieinsinuatesthattheCrystalCoxcasewasaboutashakedown,whenitwasabout
a$40millionbankruptcyandwherethemoneywentoncethetrusteetookover.The
blogpostinwhichCoxwasontrialforwasafinancialmatterregardingabankruptcyof
a1031exchangecompany.Thiscasewasnotaboutashakedown,noraccusationsof
41

42

one.InfacttheemailthatDefendantJordanRushieinsinuatesisextortionary,wassent
amonthaftertheblogpostCoxwasontrialforandAFTERCoxwassuedandhad
nothingtodowithwhyCoxwasontrial.

"MarcRandazzawroteaboutwhatCoxdidtohiswifeand3yearoldchild.Popehat
helpedleadthechargetothetruth.TheNewYorkTimesandForbesfollowedsuitby
writingthetruthaboutCrystalCoxthatmakingdefamatorypostsandthendemanding
moneyforreputationmanagementtotakeitdownisnotprotectedspeech.DavidCarr,
awriterfortheNewYorkTimesspecificallywroteapieceabouthowCoxtriedthescam
onhim.Heroically,bloggerKashmirHillwouldntbebesilencedwhenitcomesto
CrystalCox,andneitherwouldtheSaltyDroidorourfriendsoverattheFraudFiles
blog."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.Defendantsactedin
conspiracytodefamePlaintiffCox.Thisstatementpaintsafalseanddefamatorypicture
thatananticorruptionblogger,anadvocatedforvictimsofcorruptionhassomesortof
scamtobuydomainnamesandthenwritefalsestatementsandchargeafeetoremove
thosestatements.Thisisnotfact.Thisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerning
PlaintiffCox.

"DavidAman,KevinPadricksattorney,sentaceaseanddesistlettertoCoxon
December22,2010.PadrickandObsidianfinallyfiledalawsuitagainstCoxalleging
defamationonJanuary14,2011inconnectionwiththosewebsites.

Shockingly,onJanuary19,2011,justafewdaysaftersuitwasfiled,Coxoffered
PadrickandObsidian,throughtheirattorneyDavidAman,anoffertopurchaseher
reputationmanagementservices:
Presumably,theofferwasdeclined."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox.DefendantRushie
seemstoknowthattheemailwasAFTERthelawsuitwasfiled,yetaccusesCoxof
extortion.DefendantRushiepaintsCoxinfalseanddefamatorylight.Defendant
Rushieleavesoutthesurroundingemailswhichdetailtheofferanditwasasettlement
negotiationtoendthethreatoflitigationandSTOPthe10milliondollarlawsuitagainst
Cox.

AllegationsofFalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxmadebyDefendantForbesInc.,Defendant
KashmirHill
42

43

Article,ExhibitC,Dated7th,2011,TitledWhyAnInvestmentFirmWasAwarded
$2.5MillionAfterBeingDefamedByBlogger

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillwasnegligentinpostingthefollowing
falseanddefamatorystatementininternationallypublishedForbesInc.Publications.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillsfirstfalseanddefamatorypublication
was,Dated7th,2011,TitledWhyAnInvestmentFirmWasAwarded$2.5MillionAfter
BeingDefamedByBlogger

FalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCrystal
CoxmadebyDefendantKashmirHill.

Thishasledtoaslewofangrystories,pointingoutthatbloggersarejournalists.But
thesestorieshavenotdugdeeplyenough.Thefactsinthecasearefarmore
complicated,andafterhearingthem,mostjournalistswillnotwanttoincludeCoxin
theircamp.

AND

ThisstoryisnotlikethatofJohnnyNorthsideHoff,theMinneapolisbloggerwhowas
(unfairly)orderedtopay$60,000toauniversityemployeeafteratruthfulpostabout
mortgagefraudledtohisfiring.

AND

IfyouGoogleCrystalCoxsworkaboutObsidianFinancialGroup,youwillfindahost
ofwebsitesfulloferraticwritingaboutthefirmsallegedlyunethicalpractices,with
domainnameslikeobsidianfinancialsucks.com.Shemainlydirectedherireatfirm
principalKevinPadrick.Hissearchresultsareruineddominatedbypostson
websitesCoxcreated,suchasbankruptcytrustfraud.com,

AND

43

44

Obsidianstechteamfounddozensofsitesthatappearedtohavebeencreatedby
CoxtowriteaboutObsidian,saysPadrick,andover1,900othersthatshehadcreated
towriteaboutotherpeopleandcompanies.Thisisnottheworkofajournalist,butthe
workofsomeoneintentondestroyingreputations.

AND

CoxcontactedObsidianandofferedthemreputationservices.Padricksentalonga
copyofanemailthatCoxsenttohisattorney:

AfterafailedattempttogettheOregonAttorneyGeneraltoinvestigateCox,Obsidian
filedadefamationcaseinJanuary2011,andPadrickfirstmetCoxonthefirstdayof

44

45

thetrial.

AND

Obsidianslawyershadaskedforamilliondollars.ThejuryawardedObsidianand
Patrick$2.5million.

FalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiff
CrystalCoxmadebyDefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHill

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillarticledated,April2nd2012,Titled
UglyNewReputationSmearingTacticGoingAfteraToddlersInternetFootprint,

PlaintiffCoxneverwroteawordaboutthisToddler,nordidPlaintiffCoxgoafteraToddlers
InternetFootprint.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillwasnegligentinpostingthefollowing
falseanddefamatorystatementininternationallypublishedForbesInc.Publications

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillssecondfalseanddefamatory
publication

Obsidianslawyershadaskedforamilliondollars.ThejuryawardedObsidianand
Patrick$2.5million.

AND

AfterObsidiansuedCox,shecontactedthemofferingherreputationservicesfor
$2,500amonthshecouldfixthefirmsreputationandhelppromoteitsbusiness.(In
somecircles,wecallthatextortion.
45

46

AND

thejudgeclarifyingthatbloggerscanbejournalists,butthatCoxisaserialharasser,
notajournalist.)

AND

Anotherlawyer,MarcRandazza,hadalsospokenwithCoxabouthercaseafter
decidingnottoworkwithhim,Coxsenthimanemaillettinghimknowthatsheneeded
tomakemoneyandwaswillingtoofferhimherreputationmanagementservices.In
fact,shehadalreadyboughthisdomainname(marcrandazza.com).Randazzawrites
onhisblog:
ApparentlyIwasnotsufficientlythreatenedbythistactic,soCoxwentonto
register:

fuckmarcrandazza.com,marcrandazzasucks.com,marcjrandazza.com,
marcjohnrandazza.com

ShealsoregisteredagreatmanyBloggeraccountsbearingmyname,
includingmarkrandazza.blogger.com.

viaJudgerules,again,thatbloggerCrystalCoxisnotajournalist.Youknow
why?BecausesheISNTajournalist.TheLegalSatyricon.

AND

(Fordisclosuressake,IshouldmentionthatCoxalsobeganbloggingaboutme
repeatedlyaroundthistimeusingthesametacticssheusedonObsidianandPadrick,
becauseIwasthefirsttowriteacriticalarticleabouthertactics.WhenDavidCarrofthe
46

47

NewYorkTimesfollowedsuithealsoattractedherire.

AND

SheboughtthedomainnameforMarcswife,JenniferRandazza(andhasalready
starteddominatingherfirstpageofGoogleresultswithherhyperbolicposts).When
RandazzastillwouldntbuyherservicesCoxmovedontoayoungermemberofthe
family:
Whenthisdidntgetthedesiredresponse,Coxturnedtoaplacewhereeventhe
lowestofthelowwouldnotstoopshefocusedherstalkerishattentiononmy
threeyearolddaughterandregisteredNataliaRandazza.com.

viaJudgerules,again,thatbloggerCrystalCoxisnotajournalist.Youknow
why?BecausesheISNTajournalist.TheLegalSatyricon.

AND

ThesearchengineresultsforthreeyearoldNataliaRandazzaareatthistime
dominatedbycontentfromherfather,includingathebabyhasarrivedblogpostwith
accompanyingwrinklynewbornphotoandafewYouTubebabyvideos(classicslike
Nataliasfirstbath).Theresalsoapagebysomeconfuseddatagrabberthatsuggests
NataliaandMarcRandazzaarebusinessassociates.Perhapsduetothenegative
attentionCoxtookdownthecontentshehadstartedpublishingonthe
nataliarandazza.comsite.
RandazzasstrugglewithCoxisrepresentativeofamuchlargerbattlebeingwagedon
theInternetpittingfreespeechagainstourrightstoprotectourreputations.Randazza,
alawyerwhohasinhiscareerfoughttoprotectlotsoftroublingspeech,understands
thistensionmorethanmost.Yethewrites:
Fortunately,IhadalargeenoughpublicreputationandtheGooglejuiceto
withstandherattacks.

47

48

KevinPadrickdidnthavethatluxury.
Otherpeoplewonthavethatluxury.
Mythreeyearolddaughterdoesnthavethatluxury

Thereisnodoubtthatthebloggingcommunityneedsasmanyprotectionsasit
canget,andIbelievemanybloggerswhoIread,talktoandworkwithwould
qualifyforprotectionunderOregonsshieldstatute.CrystalCoxdidnot,does
not,andcannotadvancethisgoal.Ifthebloggingcommunitywishestostand
amongthosewiththetitleofjournalist,thenitmustrejectpeoplelikeCrystal
Cox,andrelegatethemtotheirownbizarre,obsessiveandchildtargetingcorner
oftheInternet.

Sheisnotoneofus.

Sheharmsus.

viaJudgerules,again,thatbloggerCrystalCoxisnotajournalist.Youknow
why?BecausesheISNTajournalist.TheLegalSatyricon.

Coxisanoutlier.Hertacticsareextremeones.Butwedonowliveinaworldwhere
moneycanbemadefromruiningreputationsandthenofferingtofixthem.
Howdowedrawthelinebetweenspeechrightsanddigitalformsofextortion?

AllegationsofFalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxmadebyDefendantDavidCoursey,Defendant
Forbes.

DefendantDavidCoursey,Dated3/29/2012.Titled,AreBloggersReallyJournalists?
48

49

NotIfTheyAskForMoney"

AreBloggersReallyJournalists?NotIfTheyAskForMoney"

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

anyonewhosupportedCoxasamemberofthemediacouldlookprettyfoolish.
WhenIreadherblogs,Ithoughttheyweresuspiciouslyoverthetopforjournalismand
hinkybesides.ThelatterbeingatechnicaltermIlearnedinnewsroomsthatdescribes
somethingthatdoesntseemrightbutyoucantimmediatelyfigureoutwhyandasa
resultstayawayfromreporting.
IfwhatJudgeHernandezdescribesastrue,CrystalCoxisnotajournalist.
ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.DefendantDavidCourseycannotprovethisstatementtrueofPlaintiffCox.

Thebiggerpointandthiswasapparentlynotknownpreviouslywasthe
shakedownaspectofthecasewhich,iftrue,violateseverystandardthatareal
journalistregardlessofmediumholdsdear.

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.Therewasnoshakedown.DefendantDavidCourseyknowinglypostedthese
falseanddefamatorystatements.

Thisisanexampleofwherejournalismandpornographyarebothhardtodefine,butI
knowthemwhenIseethem.

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party

AllegationsofFalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxmadebyDefendantPeterL.Michaelson,
DefendantWIPO.
49

50

MarcJ.Randazzav.Cox,Bernstein,WIPOCaseNo.D20121525,PublicationDateNovember
30th,2012.

InWIPODecisionCaseNo.D20121525,DefendantPeterL.Michaelsonstatesthe
followingfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingPlaintiffCoxtoathirdparty:

"Respondentsactionsinregisteringandusingthedisputeddomainnamesmayappear,
atafirstglance,tosimplybeavehiclethroughwhichsheprovidesadvertisingthrough
payperclicksites,butonslightlycloserexaminationareactuallycomponentsofan
artificeintendedtoextortfundsfromtheComplainantandthusapretextforarather
egregiousvariantofcybersquatting.Assuch,noneofthoseactionscanorwillserveas
apredicateuponwhichtheRespondentcanlawfullydevelopanyrightsorlegitimate
interestsinanyofthedisputeddomainnames.

DefendantPeterL.Michaelsoncanonlyusetruthasadefenseinadefamationlawsuit,
andDefendantPeterL.MichaelsoncannotprovethatPlaintiffCoxprofitedfromsaid
domains,hadpayperclickadsinwhichsheprofitedfrom,andintendedtoextort
funds.DefendantPeterL.MichaelsoncannotprovethatPlaintiffCoxisguiltyof
cybersquattingregardingsaiddomainnames.NorcanDefendantPeterL.Michaelson
cannotprovethatPlaintiffCoxhadcriminalintent.AshestatesthatPlaintiffCoxhad
actionsthatpredicatethatarenotlawfulandthereforeCoxisengagedinunlawful
actionswithsaiddomainnamesandthereforenotentitledtoownershipofthedomain
names.ThisisfalseanddefamatoryandsuggestthatPlaintiffCoxwasinvolvedin
criminal,unlawfulactivityofwhichPlaintiffCoxwasnot.

DefendantPeterL.MichaelsonisaccusingPlaintiffCoxofthecrimeofintendingto
extortfunds.DefendantPeterL.Michaelsondidnotperformaninvestigation,nordidhe
fileacriminalcomplaintandallowPlaintiffCoxdueprocessoflaw,inorderforacourtof
lawtoconvictPlaintiffCox,insteadDefendantPeterL.Michaelson,aNewJersey,New
YorkAttorney,simplyflatoutstatedthatPlaintiffCoxintendedtoextortfunds.Plaintiff
CoxNEVERintenttoextortfundsanddidNOTextortfunds.

InWIPODecisionCaseNo.D20121525,DefendantPeterL.Michaelsonstatesthe
followingfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingPlaintiffCoxtoathirdparty:

theRespondentsintention,asreflectedbytherecord,wasnevertosolelyprovide,
throughherwebsites,speechcriticaloftheComplainant.Rather,herobjectiveinboth
50

51

registeringandusingthedisputednameswasapparentlytoengageinarathersinister
andtenaciousschemetoextortmoneyfromtheComplainant.

DefendantPeterL.Michaelsonpublishedfalsestatementsregardingwhattherecord
showsandtheintentionsofPlaintiffCox.DefendantPeterL.Michaelsonaccuses
PlaintiffCoxofcriminalactivityandofbeingguiltyof,somehowpreviouslyconvictedof
aschemetoextortmoney.

DefendantPeterL.Michaelsonhasnowayoftruthasdefense,asPlaintiffCoxisnot
involvedinanextortionscheme,norhasPlaintiffCoxbeenconvictedbyacourtoflaw
ofextortion.ItisnotenoughthatDefendantPeterL.Michaelsonmayclaimthat
DefendantMarcRandazzatoldhimhewasextortedbyPlaintiffCox.Norisitadefense
thatDefendantForbesDefendantNewYorkTimes,DefendantJordanRushpublished
thatPlaintiffCoxwasguiltyofextortion.ItisafactthatPlaintiffCoxhasnotbeenunder
investigationforextortion,chargedwiththeCRIMEofextortionorconvictedofextortion.

InWIPODecisionCaseNo.D20121525,DefendantPeterL.Michaelsonstatesthe
followingfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingPlaintiffCoxtoathirdparty:

Specifically,theRespondentfirstpostednegativeandfalsecommentaryonher
websitesthatwasintentionallycalculatedtoinjuretheComplainantsonlinereputation
anddisrupttheComplainantsbusinessconductedthroughhislawfirm.Thereafter,the
Respondentusedthosesitesinamannerthatapparentlyoptimizedtheirrankingonthe
Googlesearchengineinordertoincreasetheirvisibilityandprominenceonsearch
resultsyieldedthroughaGooglesearchoftheComplainant,thuslikelyexacerbatingthe
injurycausedtotheComplainant.

DefendantPeterL.MichaelsonpublishedfalsestatementsregardingtheRespondent,
PlaintiffCox,postednegativeandfalsecommentaryonherwebsitesthatwas
intentionallycalculatedtoinjuretheComplainantsonlinereputationanddisruptthe
Complainantsbusinessconductedthroughhislawfirm.DefendantPeterL.
Michaelsonhasnowayoftruthasdefense,asPlaintiffCoxdidnotintentionally
calculatetoinjure.PlaintiffCoxwaswellwithinherFirstAmendmentrighttocriticizeher
formerattorneyDefendantMarcRandazzaandtocriticizehislawfirmofwhomshehad
personalexperiencewith.PlaintiffCrystalCoxhaseveryrighttoRankhigherinthe
51

52

searchenginesthenComplainantDefendantMarcRandazzaandhislawfirm
DefendantRandazzaLegalGroup.

InWIPODecisionCaseNo.D20121525,DefendantPeterL.Michaelsonstatesthe
followingfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingPlaintiffCoxtoathirdparty:

Onceallthisoccurred,theRespondentthenofferedherreputationalmanagement
servicestotheComplainantthroughwhich,foraconsiderablefee,shewouldremediate
theComplainantsonlinereputationbyeliminatingallthenegativeandfalse
commentaryofherownmakingandpresumablyalsoceasingheruseofthedisputed
domainnames.Basically,foraprice,shewouldundotheinjurytotheComplainantfor
whichshewasresponsibleforhavingcreatedinthefirstplace.Thisegregiousconduct
clearlyconstitutesbadfaithunderthePolicy."

DefendantPeterL.Michaelson,knowntobebuddieswithDefendantMarcRandazza
suchasINTAmembersreportedtoPlaintiffCox,intentionally,knowinglypublishedfalse
anddefamatorystatementtoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCox.

WIPOPanelistDefendantPeterL.Michaelsonhasstatedfalseanddefamatory
statementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCoxinvolvedinbadfaithandofferingto
eliminateallthenegativeandfalsecommentaryofherownmakingandpresumably
alsoceasingheruseofthedisputeddomainnames.Basically,foraprice,shewould
undotheinjurytotheComplainantforwhichshewasresponsibleforhavingcreatedin
thefirstplace.

DefendantPeterL.MichaelsonhasaccusedPlaintiffCoxofcriminalbehaviorinwhich
PlaintiffCoxdidnotpartakein.DefendantPeterL.Michaelsonpublishedtoaglobal
thirdpartythatPlaintiffCoxwasengagedincriminalactivity.

DefendantPeterL.Michaelsoncannotusetruthasadefense,asPlaintiffCoxhadnot
publishedanyreviewsregardingDefendantMarcRandazza,goodorbad,andthen
AFTERthesepostingsaskforapaymentofanykindtoremoveanythingthatshehad
posted.ThatsimplyNEVERhappened.DefendantPeterL.Michaelsonpublishedthese
falseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCoxwithactual
knowledgeofthefactthattheywerenottrue.Astherewasnorecordofanyonline
postingsbyPlaintiffCoxinanywayregardingDefendantMarcRandazzapriortoasking
foranykindofjob,andPlaintiffCoxneveraskedformoneytoremovenegativeorfalse
commentary,thatshehadmadeprior,thisneverhappenedandproofdoesnotexist.
52

53

InWIPODecisionCaseNo.D20121525,DefendantPeterL.Michaelsonstatesthe
followingfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingPlaintiffCoxtoathirdparty:

Third,theRespondentattemptedtocommerciallybenefitfromregistrationofthese
namesbyofferingreputationmanagementservicestotheComplainantthrough
baitingtheComplainantintoanextortionatescheme.

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.PlaintiffCoxdidnotattempttocommercialbenefitandwasnotengagedinan
extortionatescheme.

InWIPODecisionCaseNo.D20121525,DefendantPeterL.Michaelsonstatesthe
followingfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingPlaintiffCoxtoathirdparty:

Specifically,oncetheComplainantdeclinedherreputationmanagementservices,the
RespondentthenregistereddomainnamesthatcontainednotonlytheComplainants
surname,butalsothepersonalnamesofhiswifeandthreeyearolddaughter,andthen
includedfalsehoodsabouttheComplainantonherwebsitestowhichthedomainnames
resolved.

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

AllegationsofFalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxmadebyDefendantJasonJonesoftheSalty
DroidBlog

DefendantJasonJonesemailedPlaintiffCoxjustafterhertrialandthreatenedtousewhatever
meansnecessaryifshedidnotdoashewishedhertodowithherObsidainv.Coxcase
appeal.

BelowisfromthateMailThread

53

54

"livetofightanotherday"

"I'mgoingtobeinsertingmyselfintothissituationonewayoranother...negotiating
peacebypressuringbothpartieswouldbemyfirstchoice...butthereareotherchoices."

"From:saltydroid<saltydroid@gmail.com>
To:Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Sent:Friday,December9,20114:28PM
Subject:Complaint

Crystal::

CanIseethecomplaintinthecaseplease?

Also::canyougivemetheelevatorpitchforwhatthebadactionsofObsidianandKevin
Padrickhavebeen?Offtherecord.

Didyoutrytogetsomeprobonohelpbeforeyoufiledyourresponse?

SaltyDroid"

"From:saltydroid<saltydroid@gmail.com>
To:CrystalL.Cox<savvybroker@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday,December13,20111:57AM
Subject:Re:Complaint

iguessyouforgotaboutme.it'sstrange...peoplesorarelydo.

OnFri,Dec9,2011at9:53PM,CrystalL.Cox<savvybroker@yahoo.com>wrote:
NoIdidnottrytogetprobono,itallhappenedfastandatabadtime.
Iwillforwardyoudocumentstomorrow,ififorgetpleaseemailme,somuchisgoingon..
Iamstartinganewblogtofocusforfolkswhojustlearnit..
thankyouforemailingme...iappreciateyou..
CrystalL.Cox
54

55

From:saltydroid<saltydroid@gmail.com>
To:CrystalL.Cox<savvybroker@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday,December13,20112:24PM
Subject:Re:Complaint

Hmmm.

Iwonder...ifthingsarebadforyourightnow...thenwhyareyouescalatingandcompounding
yourattacks?Idon'tfancythat'saverygoodidea.

BeforeIwasan"investigativeblogger"asyousay,Iwasalawyer.Ithinkitisquiteshocking
thatthecourtdidn'tapplytheNewYorkTimesv.Sullivanstandardinyourcase.Itfreakedme
outwhenIfirstsawit...butonceIlookedatthedetailsIunderstood.

CrystalIthinkthere'savery,very,goodchancethiswillendwithyougoingtojail.Having
"ReputationManager"and"InvestigativeBlogger"bothinyoursignaturelinekindatellsthe
wholestory.Thosetwojobsareopposites...doingthembothishellalikeextortion.Addthat
tothefactthatyou'reattackingmembersofthebar...acourtappointedmemberofthebarno
less...andthefactthatyourcasegotallthispressthatdidn'ttellthewholestoryandmadethe
courtsystemlooksilly...thingsareprollymuchworseforyourightnowthanyouthink.
You'regoingtoforcethem{thegovernment}todosomething{theonlywaytheyeverdo
anythingiswhenthey'reforced}.

Youshouldstopnothelpingyourselfassoonaspossible.

Anychanceyou'dwanttonegotiatetheendofthisfiasco?Youtakedownallyoursitesabout
KevinandObsidianandwalkawayintothesunset...livetofightanotherday.Thentheyturn
aroundandwalkawayaswellwithoutpressingthejudgementorgivingyouanyfurtherissues
...avoidingestablishingsuchahorribleprecedentforfreespeech.Idon'tknowifthey'ddothat
butifyouofferedandtheyrefusedthey'dlookunreasonable.

I'mgoingtobeinsertingmyselfintothissituationonewayoranother...negotiatingpeaceby
55

56

pressuringbothpartieswouldbemyfirstch oice...butthereareotherchoices.

jason

TheSaltyDroidArticle,"CrystalCoxs5thAmendmentRights",DatedApril32012,
writtenbyJasonJones.

"TherealTheCrystalCoxStoryisaboutlocallawenforcementsrepeatedfailuretostop
someonewhoobviouslyneededtobestopped."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

"Youcancountononehandthenumberofpeoplewhowrotegoodstoriesabouthowextorting
productivecitizensshouldntreallycountasjournalism."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

"forcingCrystalCoxInvestigativeCyberExtortionisttodowhatanyherooffreespeechwould
do"

"Thingis::CrystalDipshitisrightaboutthat.TheInternetiscurrentlybeingusedforextortionon
agrandscale"

"Nothingbutrespectdoesnotdescribemyfeelingsaboutdefendingcriminalnonspeechas
speech"

"Theresalegalclichaboutfreespeechnotextendingtoshoutingfireincrowdedtheatreit
alsodoesntextendtotellingthetheatreownerthatifshedoesntpayyou$2500permonth
youregoingtoshoutfireduringeveryweekendshowingofHungerGames.Thatscrimenot
speechitneedstobestoppednotprotected.

ThefightforfreespeechontheInternetisgoingtobeaboutperceptionnotprecedent.Most
peoplearesilencedbythethreatofexpensivelitigationbeforeanybodystartscrackingthe
56

57

goddamnprecedentbecausetheperceptionbattleisbeingbadlylost.Itsthetemperatureof
thechillingeffectthatwilldeterminehowmuchofthenewpeoplepowerwillbebootstomped
backundergroundandhowmuchwillsurvivetochangetheworld."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

TheSaltyDroidArticle,"CrystalCox::iSnOtaBLOgGER",December14th,2011.

DefendantJasonJonesRepostedtheForbesemailandinsinuatedextortion.

Repostingfalseanddefamatorystatementsisnotprotectedspeech.

TheSaltyDroidArticle,"TheCrystallizationMethod"DatedApril14th2013,writtenbyJason
Jones.

"Extortionisoneofthecategoriesofonlinespeechinseriousneedofachillingeffect.Yourenot
exactlythebestexampleofit{whAtwithyourinAnityAndAll}::butcloseenough"

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

TheSaltyDroidArticle,"TheTrillionDollarTrialoftheMillennium"DatedMarch21,2013,

"Bernsteinsgothimselfatoplawyertohandlethecasetoo::galgoesbythenameofCox
CrystalL.Cox."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

"Coxlostalawsuitthatseemedtohaveimplicationsforfreespeech::butturnedouttobeabout
cyberextortioninstead.1stAmendmentlawyerMarcRandazzawasgoingtohelpoutwiththe
case::butthenhedidnt."

AllegationsofFalseandDefamatoryStatementspublishedtoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxmadebyDefendantRoxanneGrinage

57

58

UponKnowledgeandBelief,RoxanneGrinagepublisheddefamatorystatementsconcerning
CoxtothirdpartyBruceSewell,APPLEGeneralCounsel,FormerIntelGeneralCounselANDto
APPLEPRexecutiveSteveDowling.

RoxanneGrinagefalseanddefamatorystatementspublishedtoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiff
Cox.

http://www.hirelyrics.org/hirelyricscopyrighttrademarkcasestudies.html#.UXWNRbVJO9U

"VictimsofEliotBernsteinandCrystalCoxCyberExtortionandDomainNameDefamation
SchemesJusticeisAliveandWell."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

"FREESPEECHALLGOODUNTIL30BUSINESSLEADERSTELLTHETRUTHABOUT
CRYSTALCOXANDELIOTBERNSTEINCYBEREXTORTIONSCHEMES"

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.PlaintiffCoxisnotguiltyofExtortion,thisisafalseanddefamatorystatement.

"Feb172013CNNireportHireLyrics:FreeSpeechAllGoodUntil30BusinessLeadersTellThe
TruthAboutEliotBernsteinCrystalCoxCyberExtortionSchemes."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.PlaintiffCoxisnotguiltyofExtortion,thisisafalseanddefamatorystatement.

"seekingtobringourownchargesagainsttheScamBloggeralreadyadjudged$2.5Mcivilly
liable/guiltyintheOregonFederalCourtKevinPadrickvs.ObsidianFinancialforacquiring
domainnamesofbusinesspeoplepostingabusiveanddefamatorycontent,tryingtosellthem
herreputationmanagementservices$2,500.00permonthtonotpublishdefamatorycontent"

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.PlaintiffCoxisnotguiltyofExtortion,thisisafalseanddefamatorystatement.

"ExecutivesStevenDowlingandBruceSewellessentiallywarningthemthatthedefamatory
58

59

contenttheyarepostingonBernsteinandCoxownedstevedowling.comandbrucesewell.net
"willcontinueunlessyoupayussomemoney".......EliotBernsteinandCrystalCoxattemptand
massiveconjobwithpublicopinionandpostonReverendCrystalCoxownedaskingfortipsto
besenttoCrystalCox.comwhichisownedbyEliotBernsteinthatthereasonCoxandBernstein
couldn'tgetAppletopaythemisbecauseofsomethingRoxanneGrinagedidwhichistosayon
November9th2012"DON'TPUTMYNAMEONANYOFBERNSTEINANDCOX'S
EXTORTIONCRAP."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.PlaintiffCoxisnotguiltyofExtortion,thisisafalseanddefamatorystatement.
PlaintiffCoxneverthreatenedtodefameanyoneEVER,iftheydidnotpaymoney.This
ismaliciouslyfalse.

"CrystalCoxisrunningaroundthecountrydemandingjurytrials,sellingherdomainstoEliot
Bernsteintohideherassetsfromhavingtopaythe$2.5MObsidianFinancialvCoxDefamation
Judgment

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.DefendantGrinageaccusesPlaintiffCoxofaCrimeofhidingassets,ofwhichis
notfactual.DefendantGrinagehasknowinglypostedthisfalseanddefamatory
statement.

"01/14/13RoxanneGrinageHireLyricsAdministrativeServicesU.S.CitizensPublicDocket
NoticeofAppearanceandCertificateServiceandDisclaimerinreFederalTrademarkLawsuit
RandazzaetalvsCrystalCoxandEliotBernsteinUSDCNVCaseNo.
212cv02040GMNPAL

TheabovelinkstoaNoticeofAppearanceandCertificateofServiceandclaimitobefiledon1/
14/2013howeverthisdocumentwasneverfiledinDistrictofNevadaCase
2:12cv02040GMNPAL.ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiff
Cox.

UponKnowledgeandBelief,DefendantGrinagestatesshefiledthisdocumentandallegestobe
partofafederalcase,yetitisamatterofrecord,thatthisdocumentisnotonthedocketfor
DistrictofNevadaCase2:12cv02040GMNPAL.Thisisafraudulentstatement.

"...postingherabusiveanddefamatorycontentatcyberextortiondomainsownedbyCrystal
CoxandEliotBernstein

59

60

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

"Yourcomplaintfiled11/28/2012inU.S.DistrictCourtofNevada,againstBernsteinandCox
andmyreviewofthedocketreportthroughyesterday,confirmformethatIhavefirsthand
irrefutableevidenceagainstEliotBernsteinthatmayassistlawenforcementinlearningEliot
BernsteinisthesinistercowardcriminalmindbehindanottoosmartCrystalCoxwhohassold
someofherdomainstoEliotBernsteintohideherassetsandpoststhedefamatorycontent
aboutAppleExecutivesandnowroxannegrinage.comafterItoldEliotBernsteinandCrystal
CoxonNovember9,2012togetmynameoffofemail(s)toAppleExecutivesBruceSewelland
StevenDowlingthathadanythingtodowithdemandingmoneyfromanyonebasedonthethreat
ofpostingdefamatorycontentondomainsnamedforrealpeople."

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

"ThetruthisthatEliotBernsteinisbackingCoxbecauseCoxisalienatedandostracizedby
responsiblebloggers,journalistsandcertainlyallprofessionalstransactinganylegitimate
business.EliotBernsteinisthecriminalmastermindbehindwhatIseenowonhindsightand
reviewoftwofiveinchexpandableredwellsofprintedfilematerials,a1.5inchthreeringbinder
and24.7GBDVDDataDiscs,documentandaudiofiles"

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

"IamnottooworriedaboutCrystalCoxbecauseasmyhusbandpointedoutsheisjustrunning
alloverthecountryabusinginternetconsumeraudiencereachtopickonefightafterthenext
withanyonewhowon'tsuccumbtoEliotBernstein'sandherextortionbydomaindefamation
schemes.SheisspreadwaytoothinandhasnotrealizedthatEliotBernsteinsitsback
comfortablywatchinghergoononekamikazemissionafterthenext:DefamationofObsidian
Financialpeople,DefamationofAppleExecutivesDefamationofPeopleandtheirfamilieseven
childrenarefairgameforCoxofferingtonotdefamepeopleifyoupayher$2,500permonthfor
reputationmanagementservicesbreakingallkindsoflawslikepracticinglawwithouta
license....CoxspeaksincourtpleadingsinprosevoiceforherselfbutrepresentsEliotBernstein
Iviewitinterestsaswell."

60

61

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

"EliotBernsteinusedhisrageagainstmebecauseIwouldn'tgoalongwithhisextortionschemewith
CrystalCoxagainstAppleexecutivesStevenDowlingandBruceSewell,"

ThisisafalseanddefamatorystatementconcerningPlaintiffCox,publishedtoathird
party.

RoxanneGrinagehasalsoaccusedPlaintiffCoxofExtortioninvideospublishedonYouTube.

CauseofAction1)Defamation
28:1332DiversityLibel,Assault,Slander

CommontoAllDefendants.

PlaintiffCrystalL.Coxrealleges,restatesandfullyincorporatesalloftheprevious
paragraphsintheirentirety.

Defendantshavepublishedthefalseanddefamatorystatementsasalleged
abovetothirdpartiesonaninternetwebsite,inaWIPOpublication,onradio,onblogs,andthey
havegoneviral.TheForbesarticlealonestatesithashad17,700views.

Defendantshaveknowinglyandintentionallypublishedthefalseanddefamatorystatements
allegedwithactualknowledgeoftheirfalsityandwithactualmalice,recklessdisregardforthe
truthandfalsityofthestatements.Defendant'sactsindoingsowere
notprivileged.

UpontheknowledgeandBeliefofPlaintiffCrystalL.Cox,DefendantForbesInc.,Defendant
KashmirHillpublishedacommunicationtothepublic,inanationalpublication,whichcontained
statementsthatmakeaclaim,expresslystatedorimpliedtobefactual.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillpublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementsin
whichgavethepublicatlarge,aswellaspotentialcustomersandclientsofPlaintiffCrystalCox
anegativeorinferiorimageofPlaintiffCrystalCox.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillpublishedfalse,misleadinganddefamatory
statementsagainstPlaintiffCrystalCoxwhichhasledtoirreparabledamagetoPlaintiffCrystal
Cox.

61

62

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillhadaDutyofCare,aProfessionalDuty,andis
experiencedinlegalmattersasaparalegalandapreviouslawblogger,toreviewallavailable
informationregardingthepostingofthedefamatoryarticleandtheprivilegedcommunication
betweenattorneys(CoxwasactinginherProSeCapacity)inalegalcase(ObsidianFinance
Groupv.CrystalL.Cox).DefendantKashmirHillhadaccessandknowledgeofhowtouse
Pacer,hadaccesstocasetranscripts,couldhavecontactedPlaintiffCrystalCoxformore
informationregardingeMails,andDefendantKashmirHillwasnegligentinsimplypostingthe
defamatorystatementsofDefendantKevinPadricktoher,allegedlyinaphonecallinterview,
andfollowingeMailinwhichcontainedapieceofoneoffiveemails,inwhichpaintedPlaintiffCox
inseriousFalseLight,DefamedPlaintiffandoverthelast17monthshasbeenrepublishedin
thousandsofpublications,
andhascausemassivehate,retaliation,legalaction,threatsandirreparableharmtoPlaintiff
CrystalCox.

CivilEvidenceAct1968,DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillallegedcriminalacts
committedbyPlaintiffCox,ofwhichPlaintiffCoxhadnotbeenconvictedofnorunder
investigationof.

RegardingTimesv.SullivanThoughPlaintiffCoxwasapublicfigureatthetimeandremainsto
be,lDefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillhadaduty,anobligationtoverify
informationinwhichalleged,stated,orledreaders,thepublicatlargeandpotentialcustomers
andclientstobelievethatPlaintiffCoxwasGuiltyoftheCrimeofExtortion.

Itwouldhavebeensimpleforareporter,especiallyonewithastrongbackgroundinlegal
commentaryandbloggerandonethatisaparalegalexperiencedinwhichcollarcrime,toverify
ifwhatDefendantKevinPadrickallegedtoDefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillabout
PlaintiffCrystalCoxwasfactorifitwassimplyaretaliatoryactbyadisgruntledlitigant,whois
anattorney.

UpontheknowledgeandBeliefofPlaintiffCrystalL.Cox,DefendantForbesInc.,Defendant
KashmirHillmadethelifeandqualityoflifeofbloggerCrystalCoxthecollateraldamagein
protectingtherightsofjournalistovertherightsofbloggers.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillflatoutlied,andknowinglypostedfalseand
defamatorystatementswithoutanyfactcheckingwhatsoever,upontheknowledgeandbeliefof
PlaintiffCrystalCox.

ThefalseanddefamatorystatementsthatDefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHill
published,havebeenconsistentlyrepublished,globallyforover17monthsandhavebeen
pickedupbythousandsofotherpublications.

Forbesisahouseholdname,peopletakewhatForbessaysasFACT.Therefore,Defendant
ForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillhasanevengreaterdegreetoberesponsibleanddutyof
62

63

careintheirreporting.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillhasnolawfulrighttopublishstatementsthatlead
thepublicatlargetobelievethatPlaintiffCrystalCoxwasguiltyofthecrimeofextortion.

ClaimforDefamationRequirementLegalQualifications

ElementsofClaimofDefamation

Theelementsofaclaimofdefamationare(1)afalseordefamatorystatementbydefendant
concerningtheplaintiff(2)publicationtoathirdparty(3)amountingtoatleastnegligence,and
(4)damages

DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbesInc.publishedfalseanddefamatorystatements
concerningPlaintiffCox.DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbesInc.publishedthesefalse
anddefamatorystatementstoathirdparty.DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantForbesInc.
publishedfalseanddefamatorystatementswithseriouslynegligent,asDefendantKashmirHill
didnotresearchfacts,didnotcontactPlaintiffCoxforherside,didnotreadcourttranscripts,
nordidDefendantKashmirHillcontacttheOregonAttorneyGeneralinregardtoallegationsof
aninvestigationrequestedofPlaintiffCox.
DefendantKashmirHillisaparalegal,andisexperiencedinwhitecollarcrime,aswellas,isan
experiencedlegalcommentaryblogger,andhasanevenhighersenseofdutyinperforming
diligenceandfactcheckingbeforeruiningthelifeandbusinessofPlaintiffCox,withtotal
disregardfortheTruth.

Publishedisdefinedinlawbyeachtimeaviewerreadsthepost,therefore,thepublishingison
going,17monthsandcounting,asistheliability.

DefendantMarcRandazza,publishedfalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningPlaintiffCox.
DefendantMarcRandazzapublishedthesefalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdparty.
DefendantMarcRandazzapublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementswithseriouslynegligent,
asDefendantMarcRandazzaknewthatPlaintiffCoxwasnotontrialforExtortionnorunder
investigationofextortion.DefendantMarcRandazzahadrepresentedPlaintiffCoxinthis
mannerasherattorneybrieflyandhadspoke,indepthwithPlaintiffCoxandreceivedprivileged
informationinthecase.DefendantMarcRandazzaactedwithtotaldisregardfortheTruthin
publishingfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingPlaintiffCox.

DefendantDefendantDavidCoursey,DavidS.Aman,ForbesInc.,RandazzaLegalGroup,
andotherdefendantsalsopublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningPlaintiffCoxto
athirdpartyandwerenegligent.

Defendant,ReporterKashmirHillhadaheightenedsenseofresponsibility.

63

64

TheevidencetotheworldthatshepostedinForbestoallegedlybackupherallegationsof
PlaintiffCoxbeinganextortionswasanemailthatshetookasfact,paintedtobethewholestory
andDefendantKashmirHillcompletelydistortedthefactsinordertopaintPlaintiffCoxinfalse
lightandouttobeacriminalguiltyofextortion.

Asaparalegal,anexperiencedlegalblogger,andsomeonewhoworkedinalawfirmandis
experiencedinwhitecollarcrime,Defendant,ReporterKashmirHillcouldhaveeasily
determinedthefactsoftheallegationsshewasmaking,stating,implying,andinsinuating.

Defendant,ReporterKashmirHillcouldeasilynotethattheprivate,personalemailwrittenby
PlaintiffCoxthatDefendantHillposted,wasapartialemailandnotthewholestory.Shecould
seethattheeMailwassentfromaProSeLitigant,astherecordclearlyshowsalawsuithad
beenfiledagainstPlaintiffCoxwiththepartiesintheemail,BEFOREthatemailwassent.

Defendant,ReporterKashmirHillcouldeasilynotethattheemailwasmissingkeyelements
suchastheFACTthattheemailwasaREPLYemailfromPlaintiffCoxtoDefendantDavid
AmanashewastheattorneyofrecordforDefendantKevinPadrick.Thisemailwasa
communicationbetweenattorneysandaprivilegedoneatthat.Yet,intotaldisregardforthe
factsoftheissue,DefendantKashmirHillwentaheadandpostedfalseanddefamatory
statements.StatementsinwhichruinedthelifeofPlaintiffCrystalCox,alienatedfriendsand
family,ruinedbusinessopportunities,causedmassiveglobalhatetowardPlaintiffCox,and
constantonlineandinpersonattacks,ridicule,harassmentandberatement.

Withherbackground,Defendant,ReporterKashmirHillcouldeasilyseethattheeMailwrittenby
PlaintiffCrystalCox,inwhichDefendantKashmirHillpublishedinForbes,wasdatedJanuary
19th,2011.TheblogpostthatPlaintiffCrystalCoxwasontrialforinObsidianv.Cox,andthe
ONLYblogpostthatthe$2.5MillionVERDICTofObsidianv.Coxwasbasedon,was
PUBLISHEDonDecember25th,2010,astherecordshows.

Thereforetheaccusations,allegations,anddefamatoryandfalsestatementofDefendant
KashmirHillarewithBLATANTdisregardofthefacts.ThereisnowaythataneMailsent25
daysafterthe"CauseofAction"ofalawsuit,atrial,wasamaterialfact,inanywaytowhythat
causeofactionmayhaveoccurred.

Thereisnowaythattheemailhadanythingtodowiththeblogpost,orthereasonitwasalleged
tobedefamation,astheeMailwassent25dayslater.Thisisafact,andiseasilynotabletoa
paralegal,andsomeoneasexperiencedinlegalblogging,andwhitecollarcrimeasDefendant
KashmirHillis.

Asaparalegal,alegalbloggerandaseasonedreporter,DefendantKashmirHillwouldeasily
notethatthisemailwassentAFTERa10MillionDollarlawsuitwasfiledagainstPlaintiffCox,
andnearlyamonthaftertheblogpostPlaintiffCoxwasontrialfor,andthereforeobviouslyhad
nothingtodowiththematerialfactsofthecase.YetDefendantKashmirHilltookthewordof
64

65

DefendantKevinPadrick,andwithcompletedisregardforthetruth,publishedfalseand
defamatorystatementsregardingPlaintiffCoxinwhichhascauseirreparabledamagetoPlaintiff
CrystalCox.

DefendantKashmirHillpostedthefalseanddefamatorystatementsforshockvalue,andtoruin
thelife,businessandreputationofPlaintiffCrystalCox,inretaliation,asshedoesnotwant
bloggerstohaveequalrightsunderthelawasjournalists.DefendantKashmirHilltookthe
statedwordofDefendantMarcRandazzaandDefendantKevinPadrickand,intotaldisregardof
thetruth,publishedfalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCox.

DefendantKashmirHillpaintedPlaintiffCoxinfalseanddefamatorylighttoaglobalaudience.
DefendantKashmirHillmadeitseemtomassivereadersthatPlaintiffCrystalCoxwasa
criminal,hadextortedsomeone,andwasguiltyofextortion.

DefendantKashmirHillmadeitseemasifAntiCorruptioninvestigativebloggerPlaintiffCrystal
Coxhadreportedonallegedcorruptioninordertolaterextortthoseshewasreportingon.When
therewasnofactualbasetothisallegation.PlaintiffCoxhadnotbeenontrialforextortion
allegations.PlaintiffCoxhadnotbeenunderinvestigationforextortionallegations,norhad
PlaintiffCoxEVERbeenconvictedofExtortion.YetDefendantKashmirHillhasthewholeworld
believingthatDefendantCoxisguiltyofthecrimeofextortion,andistherebynottrustworthy.

DefendantKashmirHillstatedinForbesPublicationthatPlaintiffCoxhadbeenunder
investigationbytheOregonAttorneyGeneralandthatwhenthisdidnotwork,DefendantKevin
PadrickfiledlegalactionagainstPlaintiffCox.However,PlaintiffCrystalCoxwasneverunder
investigationbytheOregonAttorneyGeneral.

PlaintiffCoxwasnotreportedtotheOregonAttorneyGeneralforcriminal,civilnordoesPlaintiff
CoxhaveanykindofbadrevieworinformationreportedtotheOregonDepartmentofJustice/
OregonAttorneyGeneral.

UnderarecentrequestbyPlaintiffCox,PursuanttotheOregonopenrecordslaw,ORS
192.410to192.505totheOregonAttorneyGeneral/OregonDepartmentofJustice,asshown
inExhibitD,PlaintiffCoxwastoldthefollowing

Onreviewingyourrequestforrecords,wedonotappeartohaveanythingresponsivetoyour
request.Neitherourconsumerprotectionnorourcriminaljusticeunithasarecordofany
complaintsorotherfilingsaboutyou.Andwehavefoundnobasistothinkthatthecurrentor
formerAttorneyGeneralhadanycommunicationsaboutyouwithanyone.

YetDefendantKashmirHillstatedthattheOregonAttorneyGeneralhadbeennotifiedofPlaintiff
Coxsactivities,andDefendantKashmirHillinsinuatedthatPlaintiffCoxwasguiltyofextortion,
howeverseeingshowtheOregonAttorneyGeneralcomplaintdidnotwork,DefendantPadrick
65

66

resortedtoalawsuitagainstPlaintiffCox.Thisisfalseanddefamatory,misleadinginformationto
thepublicconcerningPlaintiffCox.

DefendantDavidAmansenttoDefendantKevinPadrick,andDefendantPadrickpublishedto
thirdpartyDefendantKashmirHillviaaneMailtoahighprofilereporter,DefendantKashmirHill.
ThenDefendantForbesInc.andDefendantKashmirHill,publishedtoyetanotherthirdparty,the
entireworldthroughForbesInc.'strustedbrandglobalmedia,whichwaspickedupby
thousandsofothersitesandblogsover17monthsandcounting.

TheTruthisanaffirmativeDefensetoAllegationsofDefamation

ThereisnowayforDefendantForbes,DefendantHill,DefendantRandazzatoprovethat
statements,insinuations,orallegationsofextortionaretrue.

DefendantForbes,DefendantHill,DefendantRandazzamadefalseanddefamatorystatements
concerningPlaintiffCrystalCox.

UpontheknowledgeandBeliefofPlaintiffCrystalL.Cox,DefendantForbesInc.,Defendant
KashmirHillwasnegligentinpostingthefollowingfalseanddefamatorystatementin
internationallypublishedForbesInc.Publications

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillsfirstfalseanddefamatorypublication,
Dated7th,2011,TitledWhyAnInvestmentFirmWasAwarded$2.5MillionAfterBeing
DefamedByBlogger

ObsidianstechteamfounddozensofsitesthatappearedtohavebeencreatedbyCoxto
writeaboutObsidian,saysPadrick,andover1,900othersthatshehadcreatedtowriteabout
otherpeopleandcompanies.Thisisnottheworkofajournalist,buttheworkofsomeoneintent
ondestroyingreputations.

UpontheknowledgeandBeliefofPlaintiffCrystalL.Cox,DefendantForbesInc.,Defendant
KashmirHillwasnegligentinreportingthatPlaintiffCoxhad1900blogsthathadbeencreated
byCox,andthatthesesiteswereusedtowriteaboutObsidianandPadrick.DefendantForbes
Inc.,DefendantKashmirHillwasnegligentdidnotfactcheckthisinformation,noraskPlaintiff
Coxifshehadthatmanysites,andifsowhatwasthepurposeofthosesites.

UpontheknowledgeandBeliefofPlaintiffCrystalL.Cox,DefendantForbesInc.,Defendant
KashmirHillwasnegligentdiscriminatedagainstCrystalCoxandtookthewordofAttorney,
PlaintiffKevinPadrick,withoutanyinvestigationsintothefacts.DefendantKashmirHillhasan
evengreatercareofdutyassheisnotonlyanexperiencedreporter,andwasalegalbloggerat
66

67

AboveTheLaw.compriortobeingaForbesInc.Reporter,DefendantKashmirHill,asaparalegal
atCovington&BurlinginWashington,D.C.,assistingonwhitecollarcrimecases.

CoxcontactedObsidianandofferedthemreputationservices.Padricksentalongacopyof
anemailthatCoxsenttohisattorney:

AfterafailedattempttogettheOregonAttorneyGeneraltoinvestigateCox,Obsidianfileda
defamationcaseinJanuary2011,

Itisnegligenttosimplytakethewordofoneman,anattorneythatabloggerhadbeenreporting
onforunethicalactionsforover3years,andtonotaskthebloggerforherside,norbotherto
researchthefactsofthematter.

ThiseMailwastakenoutofcontext.ThiseMailwasinresponse,anactualREPLYtoaCease
andDesisteMail(aLegalThreat).ThisemailwasanegotiationtoattempttoSTOPyearsof
67

68

PlaintiffCrystalCoxslifebeingtiedupinlitigation.

DefendantKevinPadrickmaliciouslysentthiseMailtoDefendantKashmirHillinorderto
defameCox,retaliateagainstCox,andthiswasafterDefendantKevinPadrickhadalready
receiveda$2.5MillionDollarJudgementagainstPlaintiffCrystalCox.
TherewasnoreasontosendanemailoutofcontextthatwassentbyaProSeLitigantacting
asherownattorney,toOpposingCounsel(DefendantDavidAman,attorneyforDefendant
KevinPadrick)AndifDefendantKevinPadrickandDefendantKashmirHillthoughttherewas
reason,thenwhytakepartofoneeMail,ina5eMailthread,tosimplypaintPlaintiffCrystalCox
infalselight,andmaliciouslydefamePlaintiffCox.

ThisisfalseandDefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillhavecausedmassive,
irreparableharmtoPlaintiffCrystalCox.

ArticleOne,ExhibitC,Dated7th,2011,TitledWhyAnInvestmentFirmWasAwarded$2.5
MillionAfterBeingDefamedByBlogger

IfyouGoogleCrystalCoxsworkaboutObsidianFinancialGroup,youwillfindahostof
websitesfulloferraticwritingaboutthefirmsallegedlyunethicalpractices,withdomainnames
likeobsidianfinancialsucks.com.ShemainlydirectedherireatfirmprincipalKevinPadrick.His
searchresultsareruineddominatedbypostsonwebsitesCoxcreated,suchas
bankruptcytrustfraud.com,

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillwasnegligentinnotperformingasimplewhois
searchbeforereportingthisfraudulentinformation.DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmir
Hilldidnotseeablogfulloferraticwritingsallegingunethicalpractices,shesimplytooktheword
ofDefendantKevinPadrickandpostednonfactualinformationregardingPlaintiffCrystalCox.
ProofbeingthatPlaintiffCrystalCoxneverownednorhadablog,EVER,atthedomainname
obsidianfinancialsucks.com.NORbankruptcytrustfraud.com.Now,asseeninExhibitE,
numerousblogsaroundtheworldhavepickedupthisForbesArticleandrepublishedthisbad,
nonfactual,defamingfalseinformationoverandover,for17monthsandcounting.

ItisaFactthatPlaintiffCrystalL.Coxneverownednorpublishedablogondomainnames,
obsidianfinancialsucks.com.NORbankruptcytrustfraud.com.DefendantKashmirHillhas
postedfalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningPlaintiffCox.

TruthistheonlydefenseinallegationsofDefamation

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillcannotprovethatPlaintiffCrystalCoxhasbeen
convictedofExtortion,asPlaintiffCrystalCoxhasnotbeenconvictedofthecrimeofextortion,
yetDefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHill,publishedthisallegationworldwideand
misleadthepublicatlarge,DefendantForbesInc.,
68

69

DefendantKashmirHillisliableforthedamagethishascausedPlaintiffCrystalCox.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillcannotprovethatPlaintiffCrystalCoxowned
domainnamesobsidianfinancialsucks.com.NORbankruptcytrustfraud.comandthatPlaintiff
CoxpublishederraticwritingaboutthefirmsallegedlyunethicalpracticesregardingKevin
PadrickandObsidianonthosedomainnames/sites.ItisafactthatPlaintiffCrystalCoxhas
neverowneddomainnamesobsidianfinancialsucks.com.NORbankruptcytrustfraud.com

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillcannotprovethatCoxcontactedObsidianand
offeredthemreputationservices.PadricksentalongacopyofanemailthatCoxsenttohis
attorney:Thisisfalseandmisleading,asPlaintiffCrystalCoxrepliedtoanemailfrom
DefendantKevinPadricksAttorney,DefendantDavidAmanofDefendantTonkonTorp.Plaintiff
CrystalCoxrepliedtoanemailcontainingalegalthreat,anddidsoactingasherownattorney,
inherProSeCapacity,thatisaFACT.DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillsimply
tooktheversionofthecommunicationfromDefendantKevinPadrickanddidnotfactcheck
theseallegationsnorobtainacopyoftheoriginalemailinfullcontext,inordertoactuallypaint
thetruestory.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillcannotprovethisForbesInc.published
statement{AfterafailedattempttogettheOregonAttorneyGeneraltoinvestigateCox,
ObsidianfiledadefamationcaseinJanuary2011,}
YetDefendantForbes,DefendantKashmirHillpublishedthiscriminalallegation,thisfalse,
defamatoryandmisleadinginformation.DefendantHillpublishedthisinformationwithoutany
kindoffactcheckingwhatsoever.DefendantHilltookthewordofDefendantKevinPadrickand
inbreachofduty,breachofdutyofcare,andnegligencedidnotbothertocontacttheOregon
AttorneyGeneralbyphone,emailoreventhroughtheuseoftheOregonopenrecordslaw,
ORS192.410to192.505,whichisasimplymatterofaquickeMailtotheOregonDepartmentof
Justice/theOregonAttorneyGeneral.Andinstead,DefendantKashmirHillsimplypublished
thisfalseanddefamatorystatementtothepublicatlarge,whichwaspickedupbythousandsof
otheronlinepublication.AndhascausedmassivebacklashandirreparabledamagetoPlaintiff
CrystalCox.

Itisserioustoallege,state,thatPlaintiffCrystalCoxhadacomplaintfiledwiththeOregon
AttorneyGeneralbyanOregonAttorney(KevinD.Padrick),especiallywithoutcontacting
PlaintiffCox,norOregonOfficialsinordertoverifythisdefaming,harassing,falseinformation
thathascausedirreparableharmtoPlaintiffCrystalCox,andhascausedhate,retaliation,
attacks,andconstantduressfor17monthsandcounting.DefendantForbesInc.,Defendant
KashmirHillareliableforthisdamage.

69

70

Flatoutstatingthattherewasacomplaintcalledin,writtenorinanywaysubmittedtothe
OregonAttorneyGeneralinregardtoaninvestigationofPlaintiffCrystalCoxislifeendangering,
defamatory,harassing,negligent,unconstitutionalandisquitepossiblycriminalendangerment
andcriminaldefamation,upontheknowledgeandbeliefofPlaintiffCrystalCox.

ItisaFactthatthereisnosuchrecordofthisallegation,asprovenbyaswornletterfrom
theOregonAttorneyGeneralofficetome,PlaintiffCrystalCox,thisisExhibitD.

ItisnotaFreedomofSpeech,norcoveredunderShieldLawsforDefendantForbes,
DefendantKashmirHilltostatethatPlaintiffCoxwasunderinvestigationbytheOregonAttorney
General,whenPlaintiffCoxwasNOTunderinvestigationnorhadCoxevenhadsomuchasa
consumercomplaint.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillcannotprovethatObsidianslawyers
hadaskedforamilliondollars.ThejuryawardedObsidianandPatrick$2.5million.This
statementisfalse,misleadinganddefamatoryasitsuggeststhatPlaintiffCoxissobadthat
thejuryawarded1.5millionmorethanaskedfor.Aquickfactcheckofcourtdocuments,easily
foundonline.Thelawsuitwasfor10MillionDollarsagainstCoxfiledbyPadrickviaAman.Atthe
timeofthetrial,thejuryinstructionswas1milliontoPadrickand1milliontoObsidian.NOT
simplyonemillionasDefendantHillflatoutstated.I,PlaintiffCrystalCoxamnowaProSe
Litigantinmanycasesduetothesedefamatoryattacks.Informationsuchasamilliondollar
differenceinajuryinstructionisanimportantfact,onethatanexperiencedlegalblogger,a
paralegalexperiencedinwhitecollarcrimeandaseasonedreportersuchasDefendantHillis,
shouldhavebeenabletoeasilyresearchandtounderstandtheimportanceofthisMILLION
dollardifference.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillcannotprovethisallegationofextortion,
orevenmisleadingsuggestionofExtortionAfterObsidiansuedCox,shecontactedthem
offeringherreputationservicesfor$2,500amonthshecouldfixthefirmsreputationand
helppromoteitsbusiness.(Insomecircles,wecallthatextortion.FirstofallDefendant
KashmirHilladmitsknowledgethatalawsuithadalreadybeenfiledwhenthatemailwassent,
andasaparalegal,shewouldeasilyknowthat,atthistimePlaintiffCoxwasalreadyactingas
herownattorneyandthereforeDefendantKashmirHillwaspostingprivilegedattorneyclient
70

71

emailsbetweenattorneysina10milliondollardefamationcase.
Alsowiththisadmittedknowledge,DefendantKashmirHill,alegalbloggeranda
paralegal,wouldknowthatPlaintiffCoxwasrespondinginregardtothelegalaction,thelawsuit
againstherandwasnotsimplyoffertofixsomeallegeddamagetoPadrickreputationthatCox
hadallegedlycaused,andthereforethiswasaprivatesettlementcommunicationbetween
attorneysofwhichshewasnotapartytoandhadnolegalrighttopostpartofoneemail,outof5
inthisnegotiationandtherebypaintPlaintiffCrystalCoxinfalselightandruinherlife,withtotal
disregardofthefactsofthecase.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillcannotprovethataJudgesaidthe
followingthejudgeclarifyingthatbloggerscanbejournalists,butthatCoxisaserialharasser,
notajournalist.)AJudgedidnotclaimthatPlaintiffCoxwasaserialharasser.
DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillcannotprovethatAnotherlawyer,Marc
Randazza,hadalsospokenwithCoxabouthercaseafterdecidingnottoworkwithhim,Cox
senthimanemaillettinghimknowthatsheneededtomakemoneyandwaswillingtoofferhim
herreputationmanagementservices.

DefendantMarcRandazzawasactingasanattorneyforPlaintiffCrystalCoxin
negotiationswithDefendantDavidAmanandDefendantKevinPadrick,thatisafact.

DefendantMarcRandazzahadconversationswithPlaintiffCrystalCoxregardingher

onlinemarketing,andtheallegationsagainstCoxandthefactthattheywerenottrue.Defendant
MarcRandazzatoldPlaintiffCoxthathehadnoissuewithheraskingforajob.PlaintiffCrystal
CoxhadnotpostedanythingonlinewhatsoeverregardingMarcRandazzawhensheaskedhim,
herformerattorney,ifheknewanyoneneedingamarketingspecialistassheneededajob.
DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillhasdistortedthefacts,paintedPlaintiffCrystal
CoxinfalselightandmaliciouslydefamedPlaintiffCrystalCox.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillStates:(Fordisclosuressake,Ishouldmention
thatCoxalsobeganbloggingaboutmerepeatedlyaroundthistimeusingthesametacticsshe
usedonObsidianandPadrick,becauseIwasthefirsttowriteacriticalarticleabouthertactics.
WhenDavidCarroftheNewYorkTimesfollowedsuithealsoattractedherire.thisisafalse
statement,asI,PlaintiffCrystalCoxwasnotusingatacticagainstDefendantHill,inwhichshe
leadsthereadertobelievewasalsousedagainstDefendantRandazzaandDefendantPadrick.
71

72

I,PlaintiffCrystalCoxbloggedaboutKashmirHillinordertodefendmyselfagainsther
defamatorypublishings,assheremovedmycommentsonherbloginwhichpostedtheproof
thatherallegationswerefalse,misleading,defamatoryandevenendangering.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillStates:SheboughtthedomainnameforMarcs
wife,JenniferRandazza(andhasalreadystarteddominatingherfirstpageofGoogleresults
withherhyperbolicposts).WhenRandazzastillwouldntbuyherservicesCoxmovedontoa
youngermemberofthefamily:thisisfalseandmisleading.Ihaveeverylawfulrighttobuythe
domainnameofDefendantRandazzaswifeandpokefunatthispornattorneyandhisattackon
womeninthepublicmedia.

I,PlaintiffCrystalCoxdidnotextortDefendantRandazzaasthissuggests,Isimplyaskedifhe
knewanyonethatwouldhireme.IdidnotstatethatifyoudonthiremeIwillpostbadstuff
online.Therewasnoretaliationfornotbuyingmyservices.

AlsonotethiswasafterObsidianV.CoxandIwasunderhighpublicscrutiny,itwasnot
myintentioninObsidiannorwithDefendantRandazzatoextortanyone.ThegoalofPlaintiff
CrystalCoxhasalwaysbeentoexposecorruption,nottobecorrupt.ThegoalofPlaintiff
CrystalCoxhasalwaysbeentosupportvictimsofcorruption,citizenjournalistsand
whistleblowers.Thousandsofblogpostsover7yearsbyPlaintiffCrystalCoxprovesthisfact.
DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHilldidnotresearchthefactsregardingPlaintiff
CrystalCox,DefendantHillsimplymaliciouslydefamedandattackedPlaintiffCrystalCoxwith
totaldisregardoftheeffectitwouldhaveonthepersonallifeandbusinessofPlaintiffCrystal
Cox.

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillcannotprovethatThesearchengineresultsfor
threeyearoldNataliaRandazzaareatthistimedominatedbycontentfromherfather,including
athebabyhasarrivedblogpostwithaccompanyingwrinklynewbornphotoandafewYouTube
babyvideos(classicslikeNataliasfirstbath).Theresalsoapagebysomeconfuseddata
grabberthatsuggestsNataliaandMarcRandazzaarebusinessassociates.Perhapsduetothe
negativeattentionCoxtookdownthecontentshehadstartedpublishingonthe
nataliarandazza.comsite.
Thisismaliciousdefamationthathasalienatedmyfamily,friends,clients,customersandthe
publicatlargeanditisfalse.PlaintiffCrystalCoxneverhadablogregardingthischild.Plaintiff
CrystalCoxneverevenhadONEblogpostnamingthischild.PlaintiffCrystalCoxnevertook
downanythingpublishedinthisregard,asNOTHINGeverwas,thisisaFACT.Defendant
ForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillisliableforthemassivestressandirreparabledamagethat
shehascausedtothelifeandbusinessofPlaintiffCrystalCox.
72

73

DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillcannotprovethatPlaintiffCrystalCoxruined
ANYreputationwiththeintenttoprofit,DefendantHillStatesCoxisanoutlier.Hertacticsare
extremeones.Butwedonowliveinaworldwheremoneycanbemadefromruiningreputations
andthenofferingtofixthem.
Howdowedrawthelinebetweenspeechrightsanddigitalformsofextortion?
DefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillhas,AGAIN,misledthepublicthatPlaintiff
CrystalCoxisguiltyofextortion.PlaintiffCrystalCoxisanAntiCorruptionBloggeranddoesnot
dothistoprofit,nortoruinreputationsandcertainlynottoextortanyone.Thisisafalse,
defamatoryandmisleadingstatementbyDefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmirHillwhich
hascausedirreparableharmandsufferingtoPlaintiffCrystalCox.
Alsoitisimportanttonote,thatnotonlydidDefendantForbesInc.,DefendantKashmir
Hillnotgetnorpostmyside,norfactchecktheseallegations,DefendantForbesInc.,Defendant
KashmirHillalsoremovedcommentsImadeonthearticlesdefendingmyselffromthefalseand
defamatoryremarks.
ItisimportanttonotthatDefendantKashmirHillusetoworkatAboveTheLaw.comasa
legalcommentarybloggerandDefendantMarcRandazzawastheircounsel.Defendant
KashmirHillhasahistory,andseriousconflictsofinteresttakingthewordofDefendantMarc
Randazzaasfactwithoutfactcheckinginanyway.
DefendantForbes,DefendantKashmirHillisnotprotectedundertheFirstAmendment,
norShieldLaw,norTimesv.Sullivan,norGertzv.Welch,tonegligently,withmaliceandwithout
dutyofcare,defamePlaintiffCrystalCox,maliciously.

PublicationandtheInternet

Itisoftenassumedthatpublicationofinternetmaterialtakesplacewhenthematerialisrst
putonline,butinlaw,publicationoccurswhenareaderaccessesthetext.Thismeansthata
freshpublicationtakesplaceeverytimesomeonereadsthematerial.

InLoutchanskyvTimesNewspapersLtd(No.2)(2001)TheTimespublishedarticlesclaiming
thatGrigoriLoutchansky,abusinessman,wasinvolvedincrime.Hesuedforboththepaper
publication,andtheuseofthestoriesonthenewspaperswebsite.Thepaperarguedthat,
regardingonlinestories,publicationshouldbedeemedtotakeplacejustonce,whenthestory
wasplacedonthewebsite.TheCourtofAppealdisagreed,andconrmedthateachtimethe
storywasaccesseditwasafreshpublication.
ThereforeeachtimethestoryinwhichDefendantMarcRandazza,DefendandForbes,
DefendantBobGarfield,DefendantJordanRushie,DefendantDavidCarr,DefendantKashmir
73

74

Hillpublishedfalseanddefamatoryremarks,constitutespublication,asamatteroflaw.

SpoofsandJokesinDefamationLaw

Itisoftenthoughtthatifadefamatoryallegationisclearlypresentedaspartofajoke,there
willbenoliability,butthisisnotthecase.Rememberthatindefamation,whatisimportant
isnotwhatthespeakerorwritermeant,buttheeffectthestatementwouldhaveonalisteneror
reader.Ifanordinary,reasonablepersonwouldassumetherewassometruthbehindthewords,
thentheremaybeliabilityfordefamation.Thefactthatsatiricalprogrammesandarticles
regularlytakethisriskdoesnotmeanthattheriskdoesnotexist.
InGallowayvJewishCommunicationsLtd(2008),MPGeorgeGallowaywon15,000in
damagesfromtheJewishcommunityradiostationJcom.Hesuedoveraprogrammewhich
featuredactitiousMiddleEasternreportercalledGeorgieGalloway,whoseonlyphrasewas
KilltheJews!MrGallowaysaidthatitimpliedheheldantisemiticviews.MrJusticeEadysaid
thatalthoughthecharacterwasclearlyintendedtobeajoke,thedefamatoryimplicationit
carriedwasaseriousone.

Damageswouldhavebeenhigherhaditnotbeenforthefactthattheradiostationhadrelatively
fewlisteners,andhadapologisedonitswebsite.

If,however,itwouldbecleartoanyreasonablepersonthatthewordswerenotmeanttobe
takenseriously,andthatthewriterisnotallegingthereisanytruthbehindthejoke,therewillbe
nodefamatorymeaning.EltonJohnvTheGuardian(2008),

Obviously,sayingthatsomeoneisguiltyofanoffencewhentheyarenotisdefamatory.

EvenifDefendantForbes,DefendantHill,DefendantRandazza,DefendantJasonJones,and
otherDefendantsarguetheydidnotstateCoxwasconvictedofextortion,theyarestillguiltyof
defamationbyInnuendoes.Astatementdoesneednotmakeadirectcriticisminordertobe
defamatoryadefamatoryimplicationorinnuendoisalsodefamation.

Libelbyimplicationoccurswhenadefendant(1)juxtaposesaseriesoffactstoastoimplya
defamatoryconnectionbetweenthem,or(2)createsadefamatoryimplicationeventhoughthe
particularfactsarecorrect.Toneyv.WCCO,85F.3d383(8thCir.1996).

Apublicationcanconveyafalseanddefamatorymeaningbyomittingorjuxtaposingfacts,even
thoughalloftheindividualstatementsconsideredinisolationareliterallytrueornondefamatory.
Turnerv.KTRKTelevision,Inc.,38S.W.3d103(Tex.2000).

Implieddefamationoccurswhenapublicationstatesfactsthatareliterallytrue,butproducesa
defamatorymeaningapparentfromaplainreadingofthepublicationinitsentirety.Chapinv.
KnightRidder,Inc.,993F.2d1087(4thCir.1993)

74

75

DefendantspostedfalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingPlaintiffCoxtoathirdparty.
DefendantsareliableforthesestatementsandthatharmcausedtoPlaintiffCox.

ALLDefendantshave"UnprivilegedPublications"Statusasamatteroflaw.Thefalseand
defamatorystatementspublishedtoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxandEliot
BernsteinareUnprivilegedPublications.UnprivilegedPublicationsarethosewhichfalselyclaim
theplaintiffisguiltyofacrimewhennocrimehasbeencommitted.

CauseofAction2.)440CivilRightsViolation

CaliforniaCivilJuryInstructions,3000.ViolationofFederalCivilRights(42U.S.C.
1983)InGeneralEssentialFactualElements
PlaintiffCoxclaimsthatDefendantsviolatedhercivilrights.PlaintiffsCoxclaims
thatdefendantsintentionallyposteddefamingandhatefulstatementsonlinein
globalpublicationstodefame,harass,intimidate,threatenandretaliateagainst
PlaintiffCox.
PlaintiffCrystalCoxwasdirectlyharmedbytheactionsofDefendants.

CauseofAction3.)CopyrightInfringement

CommontoDefendantsJasonJonesofSaltyDroid,DefendantDavidAman,Defendant
KevinPadrick,DefendantForbesInc.ReporterDefendantKashmirHillandDefendants
JohnandJaneDoe.

PlaintiffCoxincorporatestheallegationsandinformationinallprecedingparagraphin
theirentirety.

DefendantDavidAman,DefendantKevinPadrickhadnocopyrighttodistributePlaintiff
Coxsintellectualproperty,herwordstoDefendantForbesInc.ReporterDefendant
KashmirHill.

DefendantKashmirHillhadnocopyrightlicensetopublishthiscopyrightedmaterial.

DefendantJasonJonesandotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendantshaveviolated
copyrightlawsinpublishingthecopyrightedwordsofPlaintiff.
75

76

TheemailisPlaintiffCoxsownwords,andisthereforecopyrightedassuch.

DefendantJasonJoneshasstolenpartsofvideos,andphotosthatarecopyrighted
materialandhasnocopyrightlicensetohavedoneso.DefendantJasonJoneshas
alteredthemannerinwhichthesevideosandphotoswerepresentedandhasfurther
defamedPlaintiffthroughviolationsofhercopyrightedmaterial.

DefendantTracyCoenenhasusedcopyrightedphotosbelongingtoPlaintiffCoxonher
blogtodefameCoxwiththewordsExtortionistoverthesestolendefamatoryphotos.

CauseofAction4.)CivilConspiracy

CommontoAllDefendants.PlaintiffCoxincorporatestheallegationsandinformationin
allprecedingparagraphintheirentirety.

CivilconspiracyisarecognizedcauseofactioninCaliforniaandinfederallaw.

ThestandardCaliforniajuryinstructionforconspiracyisgovernedbyRule2.1050ofthe
CaliforniaRulesofCourt,

UponKnowledgeandBelief,PlaintiffCrystalCoxclaimsthatshewasharmedby
Defendantsactinginconspiracytodiscredither,defameher,pressurehertostopa
federalcourtappeal,ruinherreputationactingtogetherinonlinepublications,speaking
witheachotherandactinginconcertandconnectiontoeachothertodefamePlaintiff
Coxandpressurehertostopherappealinahighprofilefreespeechcase.

UponKnowledgeandBelief,PlaintiffCrystalCoxclaimsthatDefendantsare
responsiblefortheharmcausedtothereputationofPlaintiffssearchenginebusiness,
investigativeblogbusinessandconnectedcontractsandpotentialjobs,damageto
interpersonalrelationshipsandbusinessrelationships,incitinghateandaffectingher
qualityoflife,puttingherunderextremehateandduress.

UponKnowledgeandBelief,PlaintiffCrystalCoxclaimsthatDefendantsemailedeach
76

77

other,spokeonthephoneandinpersonandconspiredtodamagethereputation,
businessandlifeofPlaintiffCrystalCox.AndconspiredtodiscreditthemeritsofCrystal
CoxsappealinordertofavorDefendantsongoingTrade,pressurePlaintiffCoxtostop
herappealortakeasettlementoffer,harassandthreatenPlaintiffCox,pressureCoxto
silencehervoiceonline,usetheseconspiredpublicationstosuePlaintiffCoxandshut
downblogsbelongingtoPlaintiffCox.

UponKnowledgeandBelief,DefendantswereawarethatPlaintiffCrystalCoxhadnot
beenconvictedofExtortion,andhadnotbeenunderfederalorlocalauthorities
investigationforthecrimeofExtortion,yetDefendantsknowinglyandinconspiracywith
eachotherlaunchedacontinuallycampaignover17monthsandstillongoing,inorder
topaintPlaintiffCoxouttobeguiltyofextortionandtherebyensuringthatPlaintiffCox
receivenomoreindependentcontractsformediarelatedservice,nosearchengine
managementclientsandputPlaintiffCoxundermassivepressuretoforcehertostop
herninthcircuitappealinObsidianv.Cox.

UponKnowledgeandBelief,DefendantsagreedthatPlaintiffCoxwasguiltyofExtortion
andthattheywouldpaintherouttobeanextortionist,basedontheirownpersonal
agreementsofcausingsuchharmandnotbasedonanyfactofconvictionofPlaintiff
CoxofthecrimeofExtortion.

DefendantsareliableforthedamagetheyhavecausedPlaintiffCoxpersonallyand
professionallyoverthelast17months,andtheirreparable,immeasurabledamagetheir
actionswillcausefortheremainderofPlaintiffsCoxslife.

"Aslongastwoormorepersonsagreetoperformawrongfulact,thelawplaces
civilliabilityfortheresultingdamagesonallofthem,regardlessofwhetherthey
actuallycommitthetortthemselves.'Theeffectofcharging...conspiratorial
conductistoimplicateall...whoagreetotheplantocommitthewrongaswell
asthosewhoactuallycarryitout.'"(Wyattv.UnionMortgageCo.(1979)24
Cal.3d773,784[157Cal.Rptr.392,598P.2d45],internalcitationsomitted.)

"Theelementsofacivilconspiracyare'(1)theformationandoperationofthe
conspiracy(2)thewrongfulactoractsdonepursuanttheretoand(3)the
damageresulting.'"(Mosierv.SouthernCaliforniaPhysiciansInsuranceExchange
(1998)63Cal.App.4th1022,1048[74Cal.Rptr.2d550],internalcitations
omitted.)

DefendantshaveengagedinconspiracytoharmPlaintiffCox.

77

78

UnderCaliforniaLawandFederalLawDefendantshaveengagedintortuousconductbased
oncivilconspiraciesthatdiscriminateagainstPlaintiffCox

TheCartwrightActgovernsactionsbasedonconspiraciesinrestraintoftrade.
DefendantshaveactedinconspiracyagainstPlaintiffsTrade.

Defendantsagreed,conspired,andengagedincollusiontodeprivePlaintiffCoxofher
reputation,futuremediacontracts,righttoquietenjoymentandqualityoflife,business
opportunity,andputPlaintiffCoxunderextremeduress,hatred,andongoingretaliation.

UponKnowledgeandBelief,EachDefendantagreedandpublishedfalseand
defamatorystatementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCoxinordertodiscredit
PlaintiffCoxandpaintherinfalselightinordertofurthertheircause,theiragendaand
theirfirstamendmentrightsovertherightsofPlaintiffCox.

ManyDefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYorkTimesarelargecorporations.
Thesedefendantsconspiredtodefame,discredit,humiliateandpaintPlaintiffCoxin
falselightinordertoSTOPPlaintiffCoxfromhavingsupportinherappealtotheninth
circuitinObsidianv.Coxwhichisacasedirectlyinvolvingtherightsofbloggervs.the
rightsofMediasuchasForbesandtheNewYorkTimes.

AsadirectandproximateresultofDefendantsconduct,PlaintiffCrystalCoxhas
sufferedandwillcontinuetosuffer,monetaryloss,emotionalsuffering,qualityoflife
suffering,irreparableinjurytoherbusiness,reputationandgoodwill.

UnderNRS597.810,PlaintiffCoxisentitledtorelief,actualdamagesandpunitive
damages.

DefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYork,aswellasotherJohnandJane
DoeDefendantsdesperatelyneededtoslowdown,orevenhalttheCrystalCox
Storyasithadsetoffaglobalalarminarulingthatbloggersarenotjournalists.

Thisopenedadecadelongdebateandcontroversyonjustwhoisconcerneda
journalist,asamatteroflaw.Mosthadthoughtthiswasestablishedlongagoandwas
shockedatthisnewdevelopmentandflatoutstatementthatabloggerisnotajournalist
78

79

andthereforedoesnothaveequalrightsunderthelawortheconstitution.

DefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYork,aswellasotherJohnandJaneDoe
DefendantsneededtheCrystalCoxcasetohaveimmediatediscreditingtacticsandto
evendoallpossibletoactuallystopherfromappealinginwhatevermeansnecessary.
Newsspreadquicklyofafederaljudgerulingthatabloggerreportingonaahighprofile
bankruptcytrusteewasnotajournalistandthereforewasnotprotectedundershield
laws,retractionlaws,andotherreportersprivilegelawsbecauseshewasabloggerand
notassociatedwithanyknownmedia.

Notonlyhadthisfederaljudgeruledthatlawsthatapplytotraditionalmediadonot
applytonewmediaandbloggers,butalsothisjudgeruledthattheFirstAmendmentdid
notapplytothisblogger,becauseshewasnotajournalist.Therebycompletely
disregardingthefactthatsheisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesandisequallyprotected
undertheconstitutionasanyotherperson,whetherajournalists,reporteroranyother
citizen.Thistoocausedmassivealarmandcontroversy.

Therewerescholars,lawyers,independentmediaworldwide,andallmannerofuproar
indefenseofPlaintiff'srights.DefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYork,aswellas
otherJohnandJaneDoeDefendantsdesperatelyneededtochangethepublic
perceptionofthissituationandtohalttheglobaluproardefendingCoxinthismanner,
andtherebydefendingtherightsofallwhistleblowers,bloggers,andcitizenjournalists.

SoDefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYork,aswellasotherJohnandJaneDoe
DefendantsbegantopaintPlaintiffCoxouttobeaCriminalandtodefame,humiliate,
harassanddiscreditPlaintiffCoxinordertoquiethersupportersandtosquashtheidea
thatsheshouldhaveequalprotectionastraditionalmedia.

79

80

DefendantKashmirHill,Forbes,tookanemailfromDefendantKevinPadrick
completelyoutofcontext,withoutresearchoffactsandusedthisasherammunitionto
discreditPlaintiffCoxworldwide.DefendantKashmirHill,Forbesusedthispartialemail
outofcontextandpaintedapictureofCrystalCoxasacriminalguiltyofextortion.
DefendantKashmirHill,ForbesalsoaccusedCoxofextortingDefendantMarc
RandazzawhowasCox'sattorneybrieflyandofattackingatoddlerviablog.Noneof
whichistrue,andisdefamationasamatteroflaw.

AfterGettingmassivepressureontheRuling,theJudgeinthecasejoinedthe
DefendantsindiscreditingPlaintiffCoxandsuddenlyinadenialforanewtrial,Judge
MarcoHernandezclaimedthatbloggerscanbejournalistsjustnotthisblogger.This
judgesuddenlyturnedacivilcaseintoacriminalcaseandinsinuatedthatCoxwasnot
ajournalistbecauseofherstandards,ethicsandevenseemedtousedthewordsofan
emailfromCrystalCoxsentinherprosecapacity,longaftertheblogpostshewason
trialfor,assomeNEWreasonthatPlaintiffCoxwasnotajournalistandthereforenot
protectedunderthelawsthatapplytojournalistsnorwasPlaintiffCoxprotectedunder
theconstitutionoftheUnitedStates.

JudgeMarcoHernandezsingledoutbloggerCrystalCoxinselectiveprosecutionasif
tobetheonlybloggerintheworldthatdidnothavefreespeechrights,firstamendment
rightsorequalrightsastraditionaljournalists.JudgeMarcoHernandezdidthisto
appeaseDefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYork,aswellasotherJohnandJane
DoeDefendants,asitisnotbasedinlaw,factsnoreventheestablishedmeritsofthe
CrystalCoxCase.

KBOORadiostationinPortlandOregon,asmallsupposedlyindependentRadiostation
reportedtoPlaintiffCoxthattheyhadreceivedamemotellingthemtostayclearofthe
80

81

CrystalCoxstory.Itisreportedthatthismemowenttoall"traditional"mediaand
demanded,suggestedandeventhreatenedtostopfundingiftheyreportedonthe
CrystalCoxcase.
ItseemedthatevenDemocracyNowhadbeeninvolvedinquietingtheCrystalCox
storyasquicklyaspossibleandtheeasiestwaytodothiswastodiscreditPlaintiffCox,
makeherlookasifsheisacriminalandsomehowpaintherouttobesomekindof
monsterattackinga"toddler".

DefendantsareliableforthedamagetheyhavecausedPlaintiffCoxpersonallyand
professionallyoverthelast17months,andtheirreparable,immeasurabledamagetheir
actionswillcausefortheremainderofPlaintiffsCoxslife.

Asyoureadthefollowingpleasenotethatthisissueisheightenedbythefactthatitisnotsimply
amatterofanOregonbloggerallegedlydefaminganOregonFinancialCompany.AsObsidian
isinvolvedinmultiplestateactivities,andbloggerCrystalCoxwasaresidentofMontanawhen
Obsidiansuedher,andwasaresidentofColoradowhentheBlogpostshewenttotrialforwas
published.Thisisnotsimplyastatematter,andhasglobalimpact
OBSIDIANFINANCEGROUP,LLC,ETAL.,v.CrystalCoxNinthCircuitAmicusBriefPoints
regardingtheimportanceoftheObsidianV.Coxcaseandthemotivetoviolateantitrustlaws
andinvolveinconspiracytodiscredit,defame,intimidate,harassandruinPlaintiffCox.
DefendantsareengagedinconspiracytodiscreditPlaintiffCox,inadesperateattempttokeep
theirmonopolyofjournalisticprivilege,reporterprivilegeandfreespeech.
DefendantsareengagedinconspiracytodefamePlaintiffCoxinefforttodiscreditblogsinthe
legalprecedenceasaviablesourceofnewsindirectcompetitionwithDefendantForbesand
DefendantNewYorktimesaswellasotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendants.

PointsregardingObsidianV.Cox,anditsmassiveimportancetoNewMedia,madeinthe
BRIEFAMICUSCURIAEOFTHEREPORTERSCOMMITTEEFORFREEDOMOFTHE
PRESS.Belowarequotesfromthisbrief,inefforttoshowtheimportanceoftheObsidianv.Cox
caseandthemotiveforDefendantstoSTOPPlaintiffCoxfromappealing,andatthesametime
singleherout,discreditherandpaintherinafalselightasundeservingofconstitutionalrights
81

82

andprotectionunderthelawsthatprotecttraditionaljournalists/reporters.

"Amicushasastronginterestinensuringthatcourtsapplybroadconstitutionalprotectionstoall
mannerofjournalistssubjecttodefamationsuits,whethermainstreamreportersorbloggers.
AmicushasconcernsaboutthelowercourtsinterpretationandapplicationofOregons
defamationlaw,particularlyitsanalysisconcerningwhenspeakerscanbeclassifiedas
membersofthemediaandwhatspeechconstitutesmattersofpublicconcern."

"Thedecisioninthetrialcourtbelowturnedonwhetherabloggerdefendantwasajournalistand
whetherherspeechinvolvedamatterofpublicconcernbothofwhichaffectsthestandardof
liabilityunderOregonlaw."
"Inaddressingthequestionofwhoqualifiesasamemberofthenewsmedia,thelowercourt
adoptedseveralrestrictivecriteriathatdonottakeintoaccountthefastevolvingnatureofthe
journalismprofessionandthatseverelylimitedtheclassofindividualswhocantakeadvantage
oftheincreasedFirstAmendmentprotectionsthatlimitthelawofdefamation.Thedetermination
ofwhetheraparticularpersonqualifiesforsuchprotectionscannotbebasedonwhata
journalistsjobtraditionallyhasbeenrather,anytestmustbecloselymatchedtothe
constitutionallyprotectedfunctionjournalistsperform.
Inassessingwhetherthespeechinthiscaseinvolvedamatterofpublicconcern,thelower
courtfocusedonthestatusoftheplaintiffsandpointedoutthelackofpublicdebateinthe
subjectmatterofthespeech.Butspeechthathasyettostiranypubliccontroversymaybeno
lessamatterofpublicconcernthanspeechthatarisesafterapublicdisputedevelops.Tohold
otherwisehasthepotentialto
providenewsgathererswhoarefirsttoalertthepublictopotentialmisconductbreakingthe
storybeforethereisanypublicawareness,muchlessinterestalesserdegreeof
constitutionalprotectionthanindividualswhospeakoutonlyafterthepublicisalreadyawareof
thefactsofthestory.SucharulewouldturnFirstAmendmentjurisprudenceonitshead.The
lowercourtisinerrorandshouldbereversed."

"Thedistinctionbetweenmediaandnonmediadefendantsinprivatefigurelibelsuits
createsaheightenedinterestinbroadlydefiningthetermnewsmedia.

"Thedistinctionbetweenthestandardofliabilityforamediadefendantanda
nonmediadefendantthusmakesthedefinitionofthattermcriticallyimportantin
libelcasesdecidedunderOregonlaw."

82

83

"Courtsmustinterpretthetermmediadefendantbroadlyenoughtoincludeany
contentproviderswhohavetheintent,whengatheringinformation,todisseminate
ittothepublic."

"LongbeforetheadventoftheInternet,theSupremeCourtrecognizedthat
thedefinitionofpressdoesnotdependonthemediumofdistributionof
thespeechinquestion."

Thepressinitshistoricconnotationcomprehendseverysortofpublication

whichaffordsavehicleofinformationandopinion.303U.S.444,452(1938).
Indeed,manycourtsandlegalscholarshaveopenlyexpressedtheirconcerns

withthedifficultiesofdefiningwhomayfairlybeclassifiedasajournalist.

Manycourts,includingthisone,haveadoptedworkabledefinitionsofnews
mediainreportersprivilegecases,holdingthatatestimonialprivilege
appliestoindividualsengagedinthepracticeofcompilinginformationfor
publicdissemination.Thecriteriaadoptedencompassnotsimplythe
traditionalpressbutalsonontraditionalnewsgathererssuchasthosewho,
withoutanyaffiliationwitharecognizedmediaentity,publishtheirmaterial
online."

"TheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuitwasamongthefirstto
establishthatanontraditionaljournalistcaninvokeareportersprivilege
when,atthetimeofthenewsgathering,heorshehastheintentto
investigateanddisseminatenewstothepublic."

"TheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuitwasamongthefirsttoestablish
thatanontraditionaljournalistcaninvokeareportersprivilegewhen,atthetime
83

84

ofthenewsgathering,heorshehastheintenttoinvestigateanddisseminatenews
tothepublic."
"..,itistheauthorsfunctionthatdetermineswhetherheorshecouldbefairly
classifiedasamemberofthemediaandthereforeentitledtotheconstitutional
protections.."

"Courtsmustapplyabroaddefinitionofwhetherspeechisinthepublicinterestfor
purposesofestablishingthestandardoffaultinlibelcases.""Thequestionofwhat
constitutesamatterofpublicconcernmustbeansweredbroadlytoprotect
constitutionalinterests."

"theanalysisthelowercourtundertookindeterminingthatCrystalCoxsspeech
wasnotamatterofpublicconcernwastoonarrowtocomplywiththebroad
principlesoutlinedbyboththisCourtandtheSupremeCourt.ObsidianFinance
Group,LLCv.CrystalCox,No.3:11cv57HZ(D.Or.March27,2012).Thelower
courtattemptedtodistinguishCoxscasewithseveralcasesshecitedinherbrief
insupportofhermotionforanewtrialbyemphasizingthatthosecases
demonstratedahigherlevelofpublicconcernbyexposingpoliticalcorruption.Id.
Suchanarrowinterpretationofthepublicconcerntestisatoddswithboththis
CourtandtheSupremeCourt."

DefendantshavegreatmotivetoSTOPCrystalCoxand
todefameanddiscreditPlaintiffCrystalCox.
OBSIDIANFINANCEGROUP,LLC,ETAL.,v.CrystalCoxNinthCircuitAmicusBriefPoints
regardingtheimportanceoftheObsidianV.Coxcaseandthemotivetoviolateantitrustlaws
andinvolveinconspiracytodiscredit,defame,intimidate,harassandruinPlaintiffCox.

HerearequotesfromtheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit
ScotusBlog(SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesBlog)amicusbrief,illustrating
theimportanceoftheCrystalCoxcase,andwhybigmediawantstodiscredit,
defame,andpaintCrystalCoxinfalselight.

"SCOTUSblogwouldalsobeunabletoshowthatithascredentialsorproofof
affiliationwithanyrecognizednewsentity.TheSupremeCourtandSenatePress
Galleryhaverefusedtogranttheblogapresscredential."
84

85

"SCOTUSblogrespectfullyasksthisCourttomakeclearthatnontraditionalnews
sources,suchasblogs,thatprovideausefulpublicservicebygathering,analyzing,
anddisseminatinginformationareentitledtothesameFirstAmendment
protectionsastraditionalnewsmediaeveniftheycannotmakemostofthe
showingsoutlinedbythedistrictcourtinthiscase."

"...sthisbrieftoillustratefortheCourthowablogthatprovidesausefulpublic
serviceandthatoughttoreceivetheprotectionsoftheFirstAmendment.."
"Theprospectthattheblogcouldfacelawsuitsliketheoneatissuehere,causing
theblogtoincurhighlegalcoststodefendagainstalawsuitand,iffoundliable,
substantialmoneydamages,willcertainlyhaveachillingeffectonthecontentof
ourposts.Andthatchillingeffectwillinturnresultinlesscompletecoverageofthe
eventsthattranspireatoneofthecountrysleastunderstood,butmost
consequential,institutions:theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates."

"SCOTUSblogCouldNotSatisfySeveralOfTheCriteriaArticulatedByTheDistrict
Court."Thequestionpresentedbythiscasecreatessignificantconcernsfor
SCOTUSblog,becauseoftheprospectthatittoocouldfacelawsuitsliketheone
filedbyObsidianinthiscase.Specifically,likeCox,thebloganditsstaffcouldnot
makeseveraloftheshowingsoutlinedbythedistrictcourtinthiscase,leavingit
vulnerabletoanadversedecisioninadefamationcase."

IfDefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYork,aswellasotherJohnandJane
DoeDefendantscouldeffectivelydiscreditPlaintiffCoxorevenstopherfrom
appealinghercaseorgivingupherappeal

DefendantspressuredPlaintiffCoxwithemailssuchasfromDefendantJasonJones
threateningthatifPlaintiffCoxdoesnotcutadealandnotappealthathewouldinterject
himselfintohercase,herlifeandDefendantJoneshasfollowedthrough,17months
andcountingofblogattacks,hate,defamationandretaliationagainstCox.Thisafterhe
emailedheranddemandedshedoashesays,ashewisheshertodointheObsidian
caseorhewilltakeaction.CoxrefusedtodoasJonesdemandedandhefollowed
throughwithherthreats.
85

86

PlaintiffCoxhashadofferstosettle,threats,harassment,retaliationandevenhadher
rightstoappealgotoauctioninPortlandOregon.

InNovemberof2012,DefendantDavidAmanandDefendantStevenWilkerofTonkon
TorpLawFirmconspiredwithDefendantMarcRandazza,Cox'sformerAttorney,and
theyfileddocumentsinJeffersonCounty,WashingtonandinMultnomahCounty
OregoninordertofileajudgementlienonPlaintiff'sCox'srighttoappealObsidianv.
Cox,asanasset.
MultnomahCountySheriffOfficeCaseNumber121215329
KeepinmindthatPlaintiffCrystalCoxisproseinthematterofherjudgment,her
assetsandtheexecutionofa$2.5milliondollarjudgement.AndthatCoxhasattorney
representationonherappealtotheNinthCircuit,whichisUCLALawProfessorEugene
Volokh.AtthetimeofthisjudgementlienfilingCrystalCox'sappealbriefswerehalf
waythrough.CrystalCoxrepresentedherselfonmattersofthejudgementand
thereforetheconspiringoflawyersDefendantDavidAmanandDefendantSteven
WilkerofTonkonTorpLawFirmconspiredwithLawyerDefendantMarcRandazzaand
Lawyer(PlaintiffinObsidianv.Cox)DefendantKevinD.Padrick.

DefendantMarshallRoss,SeniorDeputyforDefendantDanielStaton,Sheriffinthe
nameoftheStateofOregonandoftheMultnomahCountySheriff'sOfficeissueda
NOTICEofJudicialSaleofCrystalCox's"righttoappeal"Obsidianv.Cox.,byvirtueof
aWritofExecution,inthenameoftheStateofOregon,mailedtoCoxbyDefendant
DavidAmanandDefendantStevenWilkerofTonkonTorpLawFirmdeliveredtoCox
throughtheUSPSandaSheriff'ssaletofollowonthestepsoftheMultnomahCounty
Courthouse.

MultnomahCountySheriffNOTICEofJudicialSale
"CaseNo.121215329ByvirtueofaWritofExecutionissuedoutoftheCircuitCourt
oftheStateofOregonfromMultnomahCounty,inthecaseentitled:IntheMatterofa
ForeignJudgmentRenderedintheCaseofObsidianFinanceGroup,LLCandKevinD.
Padrick,PlaintiffsvsCrystalCox,Defendant,onthe3rddayofJanuary2013,Ilevied
uponthefollowingintangiblepersonalpropertyofCrystalCox,judgmentdebtortowit:
Allofjudgmentdebtorsrightsandinterestsinconnectionwiththecaseoriginally
filedintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofOregon,styledasObsidian
FinanceGroupv.Cox,CaseNo.3:11cv57HZ,andnowpendingintheUnitedStates
86

87

CourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit,CaseNos.1235238and1235319,includingher
righttopursueanappealinthematter.

NoticeisherebygiventhatonWednesdaythe16thdayofJanuary2013,at10:30AM
attheeastfrontentrancetotheMultnomahCountyCourthouse,1021SW4thAve.,
Portland,OR,inMultnomahCounty,Oregon,Iwillselltheabovedescribedintangible
propertytothehighestbidderforcashinhandjudgmentcreditormaybidagainstthe
judgment.

FullpaymentattimeofsaleinU.S.Currencyrequirednochecksofanytypeaccepted.
Allpotentialbiddersaresubjecttoinspectionoffundspriortoorduringparticipationin
the
auction.Individualswithoutproofofsufficientfundswillnotbeallowedtoparticipate.
DANIELSTATON,Sheriff

MarshallRoss,SeniorDeputy
5032512516
CivilUnit"

ThisJudicialSaleNoticewasexecutedinthenameoftheStateofOregon.

DefendantswouldhavesucceededintakingthisrighttoappealfromCox,whohadno
representationinthematterofherjudgement,hadshenotbeendiligentincheckingher
localmailandmadeapitchtoAttorneyEugeneVolokhtoaidherinthismatter,and
signtheappropriatecontractsforrepresentationinthismatterandalloverthe
Christmasholiday.DefendantstriedtoslipthisinandflatoutSTEALPlaintiffCoxsright
toappeala$2.5MillionJudgementandaFreeSpeechprecedencethatisthefirstofits
kind.

"tousestatelawproceedingstocutoffthefederalappellateprocess,andto
eliminatedefendantCrystalCoxsrighttoappeal.Theyhaverequestedthatthe
MultnomahCountySheriffseizeandthensellCoxsrighttopursueanappealas
87

88

partofCoxsintangiblepersonalproperty.TheMultnomahCountySheriffhas
scheduledasaleonCoxsrighttoappealonJanuary16,2013.Plaintiffs
presumablyplantobuytherightatauctionforanominalsum.(Noonebesides
plaintiffsanddefendantwouldfindtherightvaluable.)Onceplaintiffsacquirethis
right,itseemslikelythattheywouldtrytouseittostoppursuingtheappeal,
whetherbydecliningtofileareplybrief,bydecliningtodefendthecrossappeal,by
decliningtoprovidesubstantiveargumentatoralargument,or(mostlikely)by
tryingtodismisstheappeal.
ThisendrunaroundCoxsfederallysecuredrightstopursuetheappealinthiscase
isimproper,andoughttobeblockedsothattheappealcanproceedthewaythe
FederalRulesofAppellateProcedureprovide.Thisissoforsixrelatedreasons.
First,plaintiffsattempttoseizeCoxsappealrightscontravenestheFederalRules
ofAppellateProcedure,whichprovidethatappealdecisionsmustbemadebythe
appellant,withnoprovisionforforcibleseizureofthoserights.SeePartI,infra.

Second,whilesomefederalandstatestatutesrequireanappealbondforthe
amountofthejudgmentbeforedefendantsmayappeal,theRulesrejectanysuch
requirement,thussecuringpoordefendantsabilitytoappealeveniftheycannot
affordsuchabond.Asupersedeasbondmayberequiredfortheamountofthe
judgmenttostaytheexecutionofthejudgment,butnobondfortheamountofthe
judgmentisrequiredtopursuetheappealitself.Plaintiffsattempt,ifsuccessful,
wouldcontradicttheRulesbyeffectivelyprecludingpoordefendantsfromappealing
unlesstheycanfileasupersedeasbondandthusstaytheexecutionofthe
judgment.SeePartII,infra.

Third,plaintiffsattempttoblockthisappealwouldviolateCoxsFirstAmendment
rightstoindependentappellatereviewinlibelcases.SeePartIII,infra.

Fourth,plaintiffsattempttoblockthisappealwouldviolateCoxsFirstAmendment
rightstopetitiontheNinthCircuitforredressofgrievances.SeePartIV,infra.

Fifth,plaintiffsattempttousestateprocedurestoblockafederalappeal
impermissiblyintrudesontheauthorityofthefederalcourts.SeePartV,infra.

88

89

Sixth,adefendantsrighttopursueanappealisnotanintangiblepropertyinterest
underOregonlaw,andthuscannotbesubjecttolevyandsale.SeePartVI,infra.

"Coxmovesforatemporaryrestrainingorderthatwouldbarplaintiffsfrom
attemptingtobuyherrighttoappealatanyforcedsale,orinanytransaction
resultingfromtheforcedsale.

CoxlikewisemovesthattheSheriffofMultnomahCountyberestrainedundersuch
anorderfromconductingtheforcedsale.TheSheriffisaperson[]who[is]in
activeconcertorparticipationwithplaintiffs,FED.R.CIV.P.65(d)(2)(C),inthat
heisplanningtoconducttheforcedsalepursuanttoarequestbytheplaintiffs
(Exhibit1at1),andinacontextinwhichtheplaintiffsortheplaintiffsagentsare
likelytobethebuyers.UnderFED.R.CIV.P.65(d),anorderofthiscourtcould
bindtheSheriffnottoeffectuateplaintiffsattempttocircumventthefederal
appellateprocess."

"TheFederalRulesofAppellateProcedurePrecludeSeizingorOtherwise
TransferringtheAppellantsPowerstoPursuetheAppeal"

"TheFederalRulesofAppellateProcedureSecureDefendantsRightstoAppeal,
EvenWhenDefendantsLacktheAssetsforFilingaSupersedeasBond."

"erroneousdenialofconstitutionalprotectionisaviolationofconstitutionalrights,
appellatecourtsmustexercise[independent]reviewinordertopreservethe
preciouslibertiesestablishedandordainedbytheConstitution.Id.at511.Second,
independentappellatereviewshouldhelpconfinetheperimetersofany
unprotectedcategorywithinacceptablynarrowlimitsinanefforttoensurethat
protectedexpressionwillnotbeinhibited.Id.at505.

ThecontentofmanyFreeSpeechClauserulesisnotrevealedsimplyby[the
rules]literaltextrather,therulesmustbegivenmeaningthroughthe
evolutionaryprocessofcommonlawadjudication.Id.at502.Therefore,appellate
judges,asexpositorsoftheConstitution,mustindependentlydecidewhetherthe
89

90

evidenceintherecordissufficienttocrosstheconstitutionalthreshold.Id.at511.
Thisrulehasbeenrepeatedlyappliedinlibelcases.See,e.g.,HarteHanks
Communications,Inc.v.Connaughton,491U.S.657,68586(1989)Time,Inc.
v.Pape,401U.S.279,284(1971)NewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,376U.S.254,
28485(1964

"PlaintiffsAttempttoUseStateRemediestoInterruptaFederalAppealViolates
theSupremacyofFederalLaw"

"OregonLawPrecludesLevyingonaDefendantsAppealRights,BecauseThose
RightsDoNotConstituteProperty"

"Adefendantappellantsrighttopursueanappeal,inthehopeoferasinga
judgmentagainsther,doesnotqualifyasapropertyrightundertheseprecedents.
NeitherfederallawnorOregonlawhaseverdescribedthisrightasbeingowned.
Itlacksthenormalincidentsofownership,suchasalienability.SeePartI,supra.It
isnotsomethingthat...maybe...possessed,nordoesitconstitutean
exclusiverighttopossess,use,enjoy,ordisposeofathing.

ExcerptsfromtheEFFAmicusBrief,furtherproofofhowimportantthiscaseisto
citizenjournalists,newmedia,bloggersandfreepressANDwhyDefendantshave
foughtsohardtodefame,harass,threatenandretaliateagainstPlaintiffCox.

"ThejurysverdictofNovember29,2011,findingtheDefendantCrystalCoxliable
for$2.5millionindefamationdamages,istroublingnotonlybecauseofthe
erroneousdefamationstandardappliedandbecauseoftheexcessivelyhighaward
butalsobecauseofthespeechchillingmessageitsendstothebroaderInternet
community.TheFirstAmendmentprotectsallspeakers,notjustthepress,from
strictdefamationliability.Moreover,protectedthoughcriticalspeechcannotbethe
basisforaverdictreachedbyasympatheticjury.Especiallywhenreadinlightof
theCourts(unnecessaryanderroneous)additionalrulingsregardingifandhow
onlinespeakerscanearnanelevatedmediaorpressstatus,thesefindings
paintanunnecessarilyriskylegallandscapeforsuchspeakersinthedistrict,oneat
oddswiththeFirstAmendmentandOregonlaw.Accordingly,thejurysverdict
shouldbeoverturnedandanewtrialgranted.Moreover,amicusurgestheCourtto
90

91

additionallyreconsideritsrulingsdenyingtheDefendanttheprotectionsofOregons
retractionandshieldlawstatutes."

"UndertheFirstAmendment,contrarytotheCourtsOrderofNovember30,2011,
asuccessfuldefamationactionrequiresatleastashowingofnegligence,regardless
ofthemediastatusofthedefendant.AsthejuryfoundCoxliablefordefamation
pursuanttojuryinstructionsthatdidnotincludesuchalimitation,theverdictmust
beoverturnedandanewtrialgranted.Moreover,thejurysaward$2.5million
basedonasingleblogpost,undifferentiatedfromthemyriadotherallegedly
defamatorypoststhattheCourteventuallyfoundtobeprotectedspeechunderthe
FirstAmendmentwasexcessiveandunsupportedbysufficientevidenceandthus
cannotstand.CombinedwiththeotheroverreachingrulingsregardingCoxsmedia
status,theseerrorswillleaveonlinespeakersinthedistrictunnecessarilyand
unconstitutionallychilled."

"TheJurysAwardWasExcessiveandLackedanEvidentiaryFoundation.EFFalso
agreeswiththeDefendantthatthejurysdamagesawardwasunsupportedbythe
evidence"

"TheCourtsAdditionalErroneousFindingsRegardingtheDefendants
MediaStatusAmplifiestheImpactoftheImproperJuryInstructionand
ThreatenstoFurtherChillSpeech.
AmicusisconcernednotonlywiththeimproperapplicationofFirstAmendment
standardstotheInternetspeakerintheimmediatecasebutalsowiththemessage
thattheCourtsrulingswillsendtothebroaderInternetcommunity.Combinedwith
thepretrialrulingsfiledbytheCourtonNovember30,2011,theytogether
threatentochillspeechincontraventionoftheFirstAmendment.Therefore,in
additiontograntingDefendantsmotionforanewtrial,amicusstronglyurgethe
CourttoreconsidertwoofitspreviousFirstAmendmentdecisionsregardingthe
Defendantsmediastatus."

"WhilethescopeoftheFirstAmendmentprotectionsaffordedtoInternet
journalistsisasalientandimportantquestion,heretheprimaryquestionwasnot
whetheraselfproclaimedinvestigativebloggerisconsideredmediaforthe
91

92

purposesofapplyinganegligencestandardinadefamationclaimbutwhetherall
speakersenjoythesameaffirmativeFirstAmendmentprotectionsregardlessof
mediastatus."

Title18,U.S.C.,Section241ConspiracyAgainstRights,Title18,U.S.C.,Section242
DeprivationofRightsUnderColorofLaw,Title18,U.S.C.,Section245Federally
ProtectedActivities,ProvisionsagainstConspiraciestoInterferewithCivilRights(42
U.S.C.1985),Section241ofTitle18isthecivilrightsconspiracystatute,Conspiracy
AgainstRights,18U.S.C.241.Section241ofTitle18

DefendantsnotonlystatedthatPlaintiffCoxwasengagedinExtortion,whichisa
crimebutactuallystatedthatPlaintiffCoxwasanExtortionist,insinuatedthat
PlaintiffCoxhadbeenconvictedofthecrimeofextortionbyacourtoflaw.And
misleadingthepublicatlarge,theworldastothemeritsoftheCrsytalCoxcase
beingcriminalinnature,wheninfactObsidianv.Coxwasaciviltrialregardinga
defamationallegationandNOTacriminaltrialregardingaccusationsofExtortion.

InfactPlaintiffCrystalCoxwasnotevenunderinvestigationforExtortion,wasnot
ontrialforExtortion,hadnocriminalcomplaintofextortionfiledagainsther,and
wasnotfoundguiltybyacourtoflaw,ajudge,oranyotherofficial,forthecrimeof
Extortion.

DefendantsactedinconspiracyagainsttherightsofPlaintiffCoxandhavecause
immeasurable,irreparableharmtoPlaintiffCox.

CauseofAction5.)18:1964,Racketeering(RICO)Act
27:1332ri,Racketeering/CorruptOrganization

CommontoAllDefendants.PlaintiffCoxincorporatestheallegationsandinformationin
92

93

allprecedingparagraphintheirentirety.

RICOUSCodeTitle18,USAM9110.000OrganizedCrimeandRacketeering
ViolationsofRICO,18U.S.C.1962(c)),andConspiracytoViolateRICO,Violation
of18U.S.C.1962(d))

UponknowledgeandbeliefDefendantsMarcJ.RandazzahaveviolatedFederalRules
ofCivilProcedure18U.S.C.1961through1968,FederalRulesofCivilProcedure18
U.S.C.1962(a),(b),(c),and/or(d)andhaveengagedinscams,conspiracytosteal
intellectualpropertythroughfraudulentlegalactionandmisinformationtothecourtsand
toWIPO.

I,CrystalL.Cox,Plaintiff,ProSePlaintiffbelievethatDefendantMarcJ.Randazzaand
hisClients,CoConspirators,Defendantshaveconspiredtointimidate,pressure,harass
andthreatensources,insiders,whistleblowersinordertosilenceme,Investigative
BloggerCrystalL.Cox,Plaintiff,.

CauseofAction6.)CausationandRemoteness

CommontoAllDefendants.PlaintiffCoxincorporatestheallegationsandinformationin
allprecedingparagraphintheirentirety.

HarmtoPlaintiffwouldnothaveoccurredifDefendantKevinPadrickhadnotgiven
DefendantKashmirHillPlaintiff'spartialemail,andifDefendantKashmirHillwould
nothavepublishedtothirdpartyDefendantForbes.
Defendant'sbreachofadutyandcarecausedharmsufferedbytheclaimant.
Defendantsareresponsibleforharmcausedbyathirdpartyasadirectresultofdefendants
negligence.HarmtoPlaintiffCoxwouldnothaveoccurredbutforthenegligenceofthe

defendants.llustratedby:
BarnettvChelsea&KensingtonHospital[1968]1AllER1068
RobinsonvPostOffice[1974]2AllER737
Cummings(orMcWilliams)vSirWilliamArrol&Co[1962]1AllER623
BuxvSloughMetalsLtd[1974]1AllER262
93

94

BolithovCity&HackneyHA[1997]4AllER771
TheEmpireJamaica[1955]1AllER452

CauseofAction7.)DutyofCareBreachofDuty

CommontoAllDefendants.PlaintiffCoxincorporatestheallegationsandinformationin
allprecedingparagraphintheirentirety.

DefendantshaveviolatedBreachofCareinpublishingfalseanddefamatorystatements
regardingPlaintiffCoxwithoutresearchingthefactsofthosestatementpriorto
publishing.Andbycontinuing17monthsandcountingtopublish.

DefendantsowedPlaintiffadutyofcare,beforepublishingfalseanddefamatory
statementsconcerningPlaintiffCoxinwhichruinedherbusiness,reputationand
causedherimmeasurable,irreparabledamage.

MediaDefendants,BlogOwnerDefendants,WIPODefendants,Newsgathering
DefendantsowedadutyofcaretoPlaintiffCoxregardingstatementthatCoxwasguilty
ofextortion,hadablogaboutatoddlerandwasunderinvestigationbytheOregon
AttorneyGeneral.Thisstatementsareeasilyresearchedastotheirtruth,yet
defendantsrecklesslypostedfalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningPlaintiff
Coxandtherebycausedimmeasurable,irreparabledamage.

TheskilllevelofDefendantsasfraudinvestigators,attorneys,paralegals,seasoned
reportersincreasesthedutyofcareowedtoPlaintiffinthismatter.

Defendantarespecialistsintortlawandmedialaw,defendantsareheldtothe
standardofcareofaspecialist.(Wrightv.Williams(1975)47Cal.App.3d802,
810[121Cal.Rptr.194].)

AreasonablepersonwouldhaveatleastattemptedtocontacttheOregonAttorney
GeneralregardingallegationsofPlaintiffCoxhavingbeenreportedandthatthe
OregonAttorneyGeneralcoulddonothinginregardtothecomplaintorissueof
DefendantKevinPadrick,aspublishedinForbesbyDefendantKashmirHill.Yeta
quickemailtotheOregonAttorneyGeneralunderfreedomofinformationlawsand
OregonOpenSourcewouldhaveenabledDefendantKashmirHilltoknowthefacts
beforereporting,falselypublishingthatPlaintiffCoxhadbeenreportedtothe
OregonAttorneyGeneralinanyway.Orhadeverbeeninvestigatedinanywayby
94

95

theOregonAttorneyGeneral.PlaintiffCoxhasobtainedsuchrecordsandas
Exhibitsshow,theOregonAttorneyGeneral/OregonDepartmentofJusticesays
thatnosuchcomplaintexistsnordoesareasontobelievethatanycomplaintcivil
orcriminal,orevenacomplaintofbusinesswasreportedregardingPlaintiffCrystal
L.Cox.YetDefendantKashmirHillpublishedworldwide,17monthsandcounting
now,thefalseanddefamatorystatementsregardingtheOregonAttorneyGeneral
investigatingPlaintiffCrystalCoxandduetothisnotworking,thenAFTERTHIS,
DefendantKevinPadricksuedCoxthroughhisattorneyDefendantDavidAmanof
TonkonTorpLawFirm.

CauseofAction8.)NegligenceTort,ProfessionalNegligence

CommontoAllDefendants.PlaintiffCoxincorporatestheallegationsandinformationin
allprecedingparagraphintheirentirety.

DefendantshavebeennegligentintheirreportingonPlaintiffCox.Defendantshavebeen
negligentinpublishingfalseanddefamatorystatementsworldwide.

ItisnotreasonableconducttostatethatPlaintiffCoxisguiltyofthecrimeof
extortionorthatPlaintiffCoxwasinvolvedincase,trials,orinvestigationsof
extortion,whenthisisnotfact.

ItisnotreasonableconducttostatethatPlaintiffCoxhasattackedatoddleronline
whenPlaintiffCoxhasnoteverwroteaboutthechildnorhadablogregardingthe
child.

PlaintiffCoxwasharmedbythenegligenceofDefendants.

Defendantswerenegligentinobtainingeasilyresearchedfacts,andinsteadnegligentlyposted
falseanddefamatorystatementregardingPlaintiffCoxbeingguiltyofthecrimeofextortionand
ofhavingablogaboutatoddlerinwhichsheattackedthischild.Neitherofwhichhasanyfactual
proveasneitheraretrue,andarethereforedefamatory.

DefendantsnegligencehascausedPlaintiffCoxlossofbusiness,massiveduressfromhate
andattacks,retaliation,repostingofthesefalseanddefamatorystatementsinmassandhas
ruinedthereputationofPlaintiffCox.

DefendantJasonJonesofSaltyDroiddidnotresearchthefalseanddefamatorystatement
concerningPlaintiffCox,hesimplyrepostedthesestatementsandthisisNOTadefensein
defamationlaw.
95

96

DefendantsBobGarfieldsimplywentonthewordofDefendantMarcRandazzaanddidnot
researchthedefamatorystatements.DefendantDavidCarrrepostedthestatementswithout
researchingtheirmeritsasdidotherDefendantsinthiscase.

DefendantshavenoDefenseasthefactsareplainandsimple.Plaintiffdidnotpostanywords
regardingatoddlerandPlaintiffwasneverconvictedofthecrimeofExtortion,norwasPlaintiff
InvestigatedbytheOregonAttorneyGeneral.

Defendantsfailedtoexhibitareasonablelevelofcare,andinjury,harm,wasthereby
causedtoPlaintiffCox.

DefendantTracyL.Coenen,SequenceInc.isanexpertinCorporateFraudandFraud
Investigation,andthereforehasaheightenedsenseofdutyandcareto
disseminatefactualinformationregardingcriminalactivity.

DefendantsDavidAman,KevinPadrick,MarcRandazzaJordanRushie,PeterL.
Michaelsonareattorneysandaheightenedsenseofdutyandcaretodisseminate
factualinformationregardingcriminalactivity,andfactsofalegalproceeding.

AllDefendantsasenseofdutyandcaretodisseminatefactualinformation
regardingstatementsmadeaboutPlaintiffCoxscriminalactivity,andherguiltof
such.

SmoldonvWhitworth&Nolan[1997]PIQRP133,CA
DonoghuevStevenson[1932]AC562,HL
6Witkin,SummaryofCaliforniaLaw(10thed.2005)Torts,871896
CaliforniaTortGuide(Cont.Ed.Bar3ded.)1.281.31
Haning et al., California Practice Guide: Personal Injury, Ch. 2(II)H, Negligence
Predicated On Statutory Violation (Negligence Per Se), 2:1845 (The Rutter
Group)
Wegner et al., California Practice Guide: Civil Trials & Evidence, Ch. 8GC,
ProceduralConsiderationsPresumptions,8:3604(TheRutterGroup)
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 3, Proof of Negligence, 3.10, 3.13 (Matthew

96

97

Bender)
4 California Trial Guide, Unit 90, Closing Argument, 90.88, 90.89 (Matthew
Bender)
CaliforniaProductsLiabilityActions,Ch.7,Proof,7.04(MatthewBender)
33 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 380, Negligence, 380.50
(MatthewBender)
16 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 165, Negligence, 165.70, 165.80,
165.81

CauseofAction9.)18USC1512Tamperingwith
awitness,victim,oraninformant

CommontoDefendants.

PlaintiffCrystalCoxincorporatestheallegationsandinformationinallpreceding
paragraphsintheirentirety.

DefendantJasonJoneseMailedPlaintiffCoxanddemandedthatshedoashesayin
herdecisionsregardingtheObsidianv.Coxappeal,astherecordshows.

DefendantJasonJonesemailedPlaintiffCoxjustafterhertrialofObsidianv.Cox,and
askedforcaseinformation.PlaintiffCoxthoughthewasareporter,ajournalistandwas
writingonthecase.DefendantJasonJoneswasanattorney,andhedidnotwant
PlaintiffCoxtoappealhercaseasitseemshehadpersonalmotivetopressurePlaintiff
Cox,intimidateher,harassherandstopherfromappealingtotheninth.

DefendantJasonJonessaid

"CrystalIthinkthere'savery,very,goodchancethiswillendwithyougoingtojail."

"you'reattackingmembersofthebar...acourtappointedmemberofthebarnoless...
97

98

andthefactthatyourcasegotallthispressthatdidn'ttellthewholestoryandmadethe
courtsystemlooksilly...thingsareprollymuchworseforyourightnowthanyouthink.
You'regoingtoforcethem{thegovernment}todosomething{theonlywaytheyeverdo
anythingiswhenthey'reforced}."

"
Youshouldstopnothelpingyourselfassoonaspossible.

Anychanceyou'dwanttonegotiatetheendofthisfiasco?Youtakedownallyoursites
aboutKevinandObsidianandwalkawayintothesunset...livetofightanotherday.
Thentheyturnaroundandwalkawayaswellwithoutpressingthejudgementorgiving
youanyfurtherissues...avoidingestablishingsuchahorribleprecedentforfree
speech.Idon'tknowifthey'ddothatbutifyouofferedandtheyrefusedthey'dlook
unreasonable.

I'mgoingtobeinsertingmyselfintothissituationonewayoranother...negotiating
peacebypressuringbothpartieswouldbemyfirstchoice...butthereareother
choices."

DefendantJasonJoneswasnopartofPlaintiffsCoxscase,yethethreatenedthatif
shedidnotnegotiateanendthathewouldpressurethepartiesandthatthereare
otherchoices.DefendantJasonJonessuggestedthatPlaintiffCoxhadsteppedonthe
wrongtoesinreportingon,bloggingonmembersofthebar.AndDefendantJason
Jonessimplyinterjectedhimselfintothecase,withforce.

WhenPlaintiffCoxfollowedthroughwithherNinthCircuitappeal,DefendantJason
JonesfollowedthroughwithpressuringPlaintiffCox,andwithotherchoices.
DefendantJasonJoneslaunchedahateanddefamationcampaignagainstCoxonline
andhasgatheredotherstohateanddefamePlaintiffCox.DefendantJasonJoneshas
conspiredwithotherstoentrapPlaintiffCoxandpaintfalselighttotheworldthat
PlaintiffCoxisguiltyofextortion.DefendantJasonJonesthreatenedthatifCoxdidnot
doashewishedinherhercourtcase,thathewouldpressureherandifthatdidnot
workhewouldresorttootherchoices.DefendantJasonJoneshasfollowedthroughon
histhreatandhasruinedthelife,reputation,qualityoflifeandputPlaintiffCoxin
danger.DefendantJasonJonesgoessofarastoallowtheusernameCoxKillertopost
commentonhisarticlesregardingPlaintiffCox.

DefendantsMarcRandazza,DanielStaton,MarshallRoss,DavidAmanandKevin
PadrickattemptedtouseaGovernmentalOffice,theSheriffsofficeofMultnomah
98

99

CountyPortlandOregoninordertoSTOPCrystalCoxfromherappeal.Thisisa
violationofprocess,aviolationofconstitutionalrights,andaconspiracytopressurea
federaldefendanttoSTOPanappealthatwillsetamassivelygroundbreaking
precedence.

DefendantRandazzaevadedlegalprocesssummoninghimfortestimonyregardinghis
formerClientPlaintiffCox,intheObsidianv.Coxcase.

UponKnowledgeandBelief,MenconnectedtoDefendantRandazzathreatenedto
comePlaintiffstownandinsinuatedviolence.DefendantRandazzathreatenedposted
thecarmodelandaddressofoneofCoxswitnesses,sourcesandthreatenedher.
DefendantRandazzahasalsopressuredCoxssourceintheObsidiancaseand
threatenedlegalactionifshedidnotcooperatewithwhathewasconspiringtodoin
entrappingPlaintiffCoxandpaintingPlaintiffCoxinfalseanddefamatorylight.

DefendantshaveinterferedwithwitnessPlaintiffCox,andwithherwitnesses.

CauseofAction10.)TortiousInterferencewithBusiness

Title11ofUnitedStatesCode,11U.S.C.1011330,AllLawsapplyingtoTortious
Interference.InterferencewithPlaintiffsProspectiveBusinessAdvantage

DefendantshaveTortiouslyInterferedwiththebusinessprospects,contracts,online
marketingandmorebusinessopportunityofPlaintiffCox.

PlaintiffCrystalL.CoxreallegesandfullyincorporatesALLprecedingparagraphsintheir
entirety.

DefendanthaveViolatedTortiousInterferenceLawsandhaveinterferedtortiouslywiththe
business,futurebusiness,clients,customers,buyersofPlaintiffCrystalCoxsproductsand
services.

DefendanthaveTortiouslyInterferedwithPlaintiffCoxgettingclientsandbusinessbyaccusing
herofcriminalactivityandbeingguiltyofacrime.PlaintiffCrystalL.Coxisnotguiltyof,wasnot
ontrialfor,noreverhadacriminalcomplaintinregardtoextortion,yetDefendantshavepainted
Coxinfalselightasguiltyofthecrimeofextortion.

DefendantMarcRandazzaandCoConspiratorsandDefendantshavemaliciouslyliedabout
99

100

Plaintiff,paintedherinfalselight,defamedher,mobbedheronline,threatenedherandattacked
herinthispublicaccusationofcommittingacrime.

PlaintiffCrystalL.Coxhassufferedirreparabledamagepersonallyandprofessionally.

PlaintiffCrystalL.CoxRequestsajudgmentagainstEachDefendantforactualandpunitive
damages,andallotherreliefallowableunderthelawandfederalcourtrules.

DefendantareguiltyofTortiousInterference.

DefendanthavepaintedPlaintiffCoxinfalselight.ThereisanowapublicimagethatPlaintiff
CrystalL.Coxmakesmoneybyextortionarymethods,ofwhichthereisnoproofofCoxever
havingthisstatedbusinessmodel,schemeorcriminalactivity.

DefendantareguiltyofTortiousInterferencewiththebusinessadvantageofPlaintiffCox.

InterferencewithPlaintiffsProspectiveBusinessAdvantage

PlaintiffCrystalL.Coxreallegeandfullyincorporatetheprecedingparagraphs.

DefendantshaveInterferedwithPlaintiffsProspectiveBusinessAdvantage.

PlaintiffCrystalL.Coxhassufferedirreparabledamagepersonallyandprofessionally.
Wherefore,PlaintiffCrystalL.CoxRequestsajudgmentagainstEachDefendantforactualand
punitivedamages,andallotherreliefallowableunderthelawandfederalcourtrules.

BypaintingPlaintiffCrystalL.Coxinfalselight,defamingher,accusingherofExtortionofwhich
thereisnoprosecutionortrialrecordof,DefendanthaveInterferedwithPlaintiffCoxs
ProspectiveBusinessAdvantage.

CauseofAction11.)AntiTrustLaws,CompetitionLaws,the
ShermanAct,ClaytonAct,AntitrustProceduresandPenaltiesAct
("APPA"or"TunneyAct")

PlaintiffCrystalCoxincorporatestheallegationsandinformationinallpreceding
paragraphsintheirentirety.

100

101

PlaintiffCrystalCoxallegesthatDefendantForbes,DefendantNewYorkTimes,and
DefendantWIPOalongwithotherDefendantsofthiscomplaintandJohnandJaneDoe
Defendants,haveengagedinactivitythatviolateAntiTrustLaws,competitionlaws,
andviolatestheShermanAntitrustActandSection3oftheClaytonAct.

PlaintiffallegesthatDefendantForbes,DefendantNewYorkTimes,andDefendant
WIPOareengagedinacivilconspiracytodiscredit,defame,threaten,pressurea
bloggerthatisrepresentativeofallindependentmedia,freepress,citizenjournalists,
whistleblowers,andonlinemediasourcesthatarenotownedbylargecorporationsand
associatedpressmediacompaniessuchasDefendantForbesandDefendantNew
YorkTimes.

PlaintiffCrystalCoxallegesthatDefendantForbes,DefendantNewYorkTimes,and
DefendantWIPOalongwithotherDefendantshaveengagedinactivitiesinwhich
attempttodisqualifynewmediasuchasblogsasaviablesourceofnewscompeting
withtheirmassivenewscorporationsthathaveheldsuchalongstandingstronghold.

PlaintiffCrystalCoxallegesthatDefendantForbes,DefendantNewYorkTimes,and
DefendantWIPOalongwithotherDefendantshaveengagedinactivitiesthatpaint
PlaintiffCrystalCoxouttobeacriminalandonewhoattackstoddlersonlineand
thereforeisnotmedia,isnotajournalistandisnotprotectedundertheconstitutionor
thelawsthatprotecttraditionaljournalistssuchDefendantKashmirHillofForbesand
DefendantDavidCarroftheNewYorkTimes.

Defendantscombinedactions,incivilconspiracy,haveeffectivelyshutdownPlaintiffs
onlinemediabusinessinawayofpotentialandpromisedrevenue,andaddollars.

DefendantshaveruinedthereputationofPlaintiffCoxasaninvestigativebloggerand
searchenginemanager.Plaintifftherebylostrevenueandfuturejobswiththoseshe
hadbeenunderpriorindependentmediacontractwith.AndPlaintiffCoxwasdenied
futurejobsofwhichPlaintiffwasworkingtoward,andalsoPlaintifflostimmeasurable
businessthatPlaintiffwouldhavesecuredoverthelifeofherbusiness.

TheactionsofDefendantshavecausedirreparableharmtoPlaintiffCrystalCox.And
haveviolatedantitrustlawsinwipingoutcompetitionofblogsasmediaequalinlaw
andrightsasBigMediasuchasDefendantForbesandDefendantNewYorkTimes.

Defendantscreatedamediastorminwhatisdeemedasreputablepublicationssuchas
Forbes,theNewYorkTimes,andWIPO,inwhichpaintedPlaintiffouttobeacriminal
101

102

guiltyofthecrimeofextortion.DefendantsflatoutstatedthatPlaintiffwasguiltyof
extortion,hadcommittedextortion.Thereisnofactinthisaccusationanditdirectly
causedcontractstocease,futurebusinesstocometoahaltandhateandretaliationto
ignite.

DefendantForbes,theDefendantNewYorkTimes,andDefendantWIPOaremajor
corporations,organizationsandpowerfulentities.PlaintiffCoxallegesthatthey,along
withotherDefendantsofthiscomplaintandJohnandJaneDoeDefendants,have
engagedinactivitythatviolatesAntiTrustLaws,competitionlaws,andviolatesthe
ShermanAntitrustActandSection3oftheClaytonAct.

PlaintiffCoxallegethatDefendantsconspiredbywayofemailstopressurePlaintiff
Cox,threatsoffalsetestimony,intimidation,harassment,seizingappealrights,constant
publicationsofPlaintiffbeingacriminal,threatsofviolence,suingPlaintiff,seizingblogs
andintellectualpropertywithoutdueprocess,destroyinginterpersonalrelationshipsand
publicopinionofPlaintiffCox,andvariousothertacticsinordertoSTOPPlaintiffCox
fromappealingherhighlycontroversiallegalcaseObsidianv.Cox.Acaseinwhich
couldsetaprecedencethatwouldendthemonopolythatDefendantsForbes,
DefendantsNewYorktimesandotherbigmediahavefirmlyinplace.

Obsidianv.Coxisthemostimportantfreespeech,FirstAmendmentlegalcaseofour
times(newmedia)andfortheequalrightsofcitizenjournalists,independentmedia,
freepressandtheirequalrightsofprotectionundertheU.S.legalcodesandthe
Constitution.

Obsidianv.Coxwillfirmlyestablishonceandforallwhoismedia,whoisajournalist
andwhoisprotectedunderthosemediaprivilegerightsthatestablished,traditional
mediahavehistoricallybenefittedfrom.

Blogs,newmediaonline,andindependentwebsitesaretheonlyvoicethatthevictims
ofcorruptionhave.Bloggers,whistleblowers,newmediareportersareprovidinga
servicethatisanecessityinorderfortrue,independentnewstogettothepeopleaKa
102

103

consumers,clients,customer,publicatlarge.

DefendantForbes,theDefendantNewYorkTimesabsolutelyneedtheObsidianv.Cox
casetocometoahalt,andtheyneedPlaintiffCoxtobediscredited,intimidatedand
theywereinvolvedinattemptingtostopCoxfromherappeal.Defendantshavesingled
outPlaintiffCox,haveselectivelyprosecutedPlaintiffCoxandpaintedthepicturethat
sheistheonlyblogger,theonlywoman,theonlycitizenintheUnitedStatesinwhich
theFirstAmendmentdoesnotapply.Defendantshavecreatedafalselight
internationallymakingPlaintiffCoxlooklikesomeonewhodoesnotdeservejournalistic
privilege,reportersprivilege,shieldlaws,retractionlaws,antislapplaws,anddoes
notdeserverightsofFreeSpeechnorrightsundertheConstitutionoftheUnited
StatesofAmerica.

DefendantForbes,theDefendantNewYorkTimes,andDefendantWIPOalongwith
otherDefendantsofthiscomplaintandJohnandJaneDoeDefendantshaveengaged
inbehaviorthathaseliminatedthecompetitionofblogsasaviablemediasource,by
effectivelydiscreditingabloggerwhosecasemeritsarewhohasjournalisticprotectby
law,whocanbecalledajournalist,whodoesthefirstamendmentapplytoinmedia,
whoisamediadefendant,andwillonceandforalltrulyclarifytheissuesdebated
overwhoshouldbeprotectedundermediaprivilegeandwhoshouldnot.

IfabloggersuchasCrystalCoxwhoisbreakingstoriesofcorruptionandreportingon
newsthatForbesandtheNewYorkTimesrefusestoreportinefforttoprotect
politicians,advertisers,bigcorporations,judgesandelitelawfirms,thentheplaying
fieldwillbeleveledandDefendantForbes,theDefendantNewYorkTimeswilllose
theirmonopoly,theiraddollarsandtheirstrongholdoverthenews.Asbloggers,new
mediawillhaveequalprotectionunderthelaw.

ThereforeDefendantForbes,theDefendantNewYorkTimeshavegreatmotivetouse
extrememeasurestodiscredit,harass,paintinfalselight,defame,andthereby
eliminateanyideathatPlaintiffCox,nanticorruptionbloggershouldhaveequalrights
astheyhaveintheirfirmlyestablishedtraditionalmediacartelmonopoly.Theactions
defendantshavetakentoharass,discredit,defame,andretaliateagainstPlaintiffCox
103

104

violatesAntiTrustlaws,competitionlawsandseekstowipeoutbloggers,citizen
journalists,investigativebloggers,andwhistleblowersascompetitioninprovidingnews
contenttoconsumer,tothepublicatlarge.

ThatisnottosaythatPlaintiffclaimstobeindirectcompetitionwith,ortheNewYork
Times.However,Plaintiffprovidedanotherwayforconsumerstogivenewstipstoand
toreceivenews,asdothousandsofbloggers,citizenjournalists,investigativebloggers,
andwhistleblowerslikeher.DefendantsKashmirHill,DefendantForbesAND
DefendantDavidCarr,DefendantNewYorkTimesandotherJohnandJaneDoe
defendantshavesoughttosquashthispossibility,inaglobalretaliation,defamatory
campaignagainstPlaintiffCox,whoistheprecedence,theexample,therepresentative
incourtsforALLbloggers,citizenjournalists,investigativebloggers,andwhistleblowers
whoarereportingthenews,publishingtips,investigativestories,exposingcorruption
andprovidingatrulyindependentnewsproducttoconsumersofnewsandinformation
online.

Plaintiffwasasuccessfulonlinemarketingexpert,andwasengagedinindependent
contractstoperformonlinemediaservices.ThiscametoahaltasDefendants
successfullyconvincedtheworldthePlaintiffCrystalCoxisanExtortionist,thereby
guiltyofthecrimeofextortionandthatPlaintiffCoxhadablogaboutatoddler.Of
whichneitheristrue,norcandefendantsprovethemtrue.ThereforeunderDefamation
LawPlaintiffisentitledtocompensations,relief,punitivedamageandallotherrelief
underthelaw.

DefendantswantedtostopPlaintiffCoxfromappealingherehighlycontroversialFirst
Amendmentcase,soastokeeptheirstrongholdinplaceastherealnews,protected
news,crediblenews,andtokeepthelaws,constitutionandcourtsprotecting
traditionalmediaasafirmlyestablishedsourceofnews,andtherebydiscreditingblogs,
independentmedia,freepress,andwhistleblowersusingblogsasamediumof
communicationtothepublictopublishtheirnewsandinformationcontent.

PlaintiffCoxallegesthatDefendantsconspiredtomakePlaintifflooklikeabadperson,
acriminal,onewhoattackschildren,andthereforetocreateamediafalsehoodthat
wouldsingleoutbloggerCrystalCoxassomehownotmedianorprotectedbythe
samemedialawsasjournalistswhoworkformediasuchasDefendantForbesand
theDefendantNewYorkTimes.

DefendantsmanagedtosingleoutPlaintiffCoxastheonlypersonintheworldinwhichcould
notbeprotectedunderfreespeechlaws,theconstitution,shieldlawsandotherreporters
104

105

privilegelawsandspecialrights.

DefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYork,aswellasotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendants
desperatelyneededtoslowdown,orevenhalttheCrystalCoxStoryasithadsetoffaglobal
alarminarulingthatbloggersarenotjournalists.Thisopenedadecadelongdebateand
controversyonjustwhoisconcernedajournalist,asamatteroflaw.Mosthadthoughtthiswas
establishedlongagoandwasshockedatthisnewdevelopmentandflatoutstatementthata
bloggerisnotajournalistandthereforedoesnothaveequalrightsunderthelaworthe
constitution.

DefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYork,aswellasotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendants
neededtheCrystalCoxcasetobediscreditedquickly.Aspublicoutcrywasinanuproarthat
bloggerswerenottobetreatedequallyunderthelawastraditionalmedia.

DefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYork,aswellasotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendants
begantodiscredit,defameandattackPlaintiffCrystalCoxasquicklyaspossibly.

DefendantKashmirHillsfirstarticleTitledWhyAnInvestmentFirmWasAwarded$2.5Million
AfterBeingDefamedByBlogger,waspublishedonDecember7th,2011.Thiswastheexact
samedatethattheJudgementforObsidianv.Coxwasenteredontothedocket.Defendant
KashmirHillwasthefirsttoposttheemailsenttoherbyDefendantKevinPadrick,inwhichthey
usedtopaintPlaintiffCrystalCoxinfalselightanddefamePlaintiffCox.

DefendantKashmirHillofDefendantForbesmovedquicklytodiscreditPlaintiffCrystalCox.
ThisfirstarticlewasthethefirsttimethatDefendantKashmirHillpostedfalseanddefamatory
statementstoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCox.DefendantKashmirHillhadobviously
105

106

interviewedDefendantKevinPadrickinthedayspriorandreceivedfalseanddefamatory
informationregardingtheemailandregardinganinvestigationbytheOregonAttorneyGeneral
whichneverhappened.

YetDefendantKashmirHillnevercontactedPlaintiffCoxfordetailsontheemailorastoifitwas
evenarealemail.DefendantKashmirHillnevercontactedyahoooranyoneelsetoseeifthe
emailwasreal.DefendantKashmirHillneverpublishedsurroundingemailsorthefactthatthe
emailwasaREPLYemail.DefendantKashmirHillneverpublishedthattheemailwassenta
MONTHafterthepostCoxwasontrialwithandhadnothingtodowiththemeritsofthecase.
DefendantKashmirHilldidnotcontacttheOregonAttorneyGeneralandverifythattherehad
beenacomplaintofanykind,oraninvestigationofanykindrequested.

DefendantKashmirHillsimplypublishedfalseanddefamatorystatementstoathirdparty
concerningPlaintiffCoxinordertoquicklyanddeliberately,withtotaldisregardforthetruth,turn
publicopinionagainstPlaintiffCoxinordertoimmediatelyHALTthesupportthatCoxwas
gettingfromaroundtheworldontheviolationsofherfirstamendmentrights.Andtherebyensure
themonopoly,thestrongholdofbigmediasuchasDefendantForbesandDefendantNewYork
Timesandensureherpositionintraditionalmediaashavingrightssuperiortobloggers.

Newshadspreadquicklyofafederaljudgerulingthatabloggerreportingonaahighprofile
bankruptcytrusteewasnotajournalistandthereforewasnotprotectedundershieldlaws,
retractionlaws,andotherreportersprivilegelawsbecauseshewasabloggerandnot
associatedwithanyknownmedia.DefendantKashmirHillinconspiracywithDefendantKevin
PadrickandDefendantDavidAman,aswellasotherbigmediaandJohnandJaneDoe
DefendantsturnedtheCrystalCoxstoryofaciviltrialfordefamationintoaForbesMediaflatout
convictionandaccusationoftheCrimeofExtortion.

106

107

Notonlyhadthisfederaljudgeruledthatlawsapplyingtotraditionalmediadonotapplytonew
mediaandbloggers,butalsothisjudgeruledthattheFirstAmendmentdidnotapplytothis
blogger,becauseshewasnotajournalist.Completelydisregardingthefactthatsheisacitizen
oftheUnitedStatesandisequallyprotectedundertheconstitutionasanyotherperson,whether
ajournalists,reporteroranyothercitizen.Thistoocausedmassivealarmandcontroversy.
Therewerescholars,lawyers,independentmediaworldwide,andallmannerofuproarin
defenseofPlaintiffCoxsrights.DefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYork,aswellasother
JohnandJaneDoeDefendantsdesperatelyneededtochangethepublicperception,public
imageofthissituationandtohalttheglobaluproardefendingCoxinthismanner,onthese
issuesandtherebydefendingtheconstitutionalandlawfulrightsofallwhistleblowers,bloggers,
andcitizenjournalistsbeingequaltotheconstitutionalandlawfulrightsoftraditionalmedia,
journalists,andreporters.

DefendantssuchasForbesandtheNewYork,aswellasotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendants
begantopaintPlaintiffCoxouttobeaCriminalandtodefame,humiliate,harassanddiscredit
PlaintiffCoxinordertoquiethersupportersandtosquashtheideathatsheshouldhaveequal
protectionastraditionalmedia.Orthatshe,herselfwasevendeservingofsuchprotectionunder
thelawandtheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates.

DefendantKashmirHill,Forbes,tookanemailfromDefendantKevinPadrickcompletelyoutof
context,withoutresearchoffactsandusedthisasherammunitiontodiscreditPlaintiffCox
worldwide.
DefendantKashmirHill,Forbesusedthispartialemailoutofcontextandpaintedapictureof
CrystalCoxasacriminalguiltyofextortion.DefendantKashmirHill,ForbesalsoaccusedCox
ofextortingDefendantMarcRandazzawhowasCox'sattorneybrieflyandofattackingatoddler
viablog.Noneofwhichistrue,andisdefamationasamatteroflaw.

107

108

AfterGettingmassivepressureontheRuling,theJudgeinthecasejoinedtheDefendantsin
discreditingPlaintiffCoxandsuddenlyinadenialforanewtrial,JudgeMarcoHernandez
claimedthatbloggerscanbejournalistsjustnotthisblogger.Thisjudgesuddenlyturnedacivil
caseintoacriminalcaseandinsinuatedthatCoxwasnotajournalistbecauseofherstandards,
ethicsandevenseemedtousedthewordsofanemailfromCrystalCoxsentinherprose
capacity,longaftertheblogpostshewasontrialfor,assomeNEWreasonthatPlaintiffCox
wasnotajournalistandthereforenotprotectedunderthelawsthatapplytojournalistsnorwas
PlaintiffCoxprotectedundertheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates.

JudgeMarcoHernandezsingledoutbloggerCrystalCoxinselectiveprosecutionasiftobethe
onlybloggerintheworldthatdidnothavefreespeechrights,firstamendmentrightsorequal
rightsastraditionaljournalists.ThiswasmonthsafterDefendantKashmirHillsfirstpublication
offalseanddefamatorystatementsconcerningCoxtoathirdparty.

Uponmyknowledgeandbelief,JudgeMarcoHernandezdidthistoappeaseDefendantssuch
asForbesandtheNewYork,aswellasotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendantswhohad
pressuredhim,asitisnotbasedinlaw,factsnoreventheestablishedmeritsoftheCrystalCox
Case.

KBOORadiostationinPortlandOregon,asmallsupposedlyindependentRadiostationreported
toPlaintiffCoxthattheyhadreceivedamemotellingthemtostayclearoftheCrystalCoxstory.
Itisreportedthatthismemowenttoall"traditional"mediaanddemanded,suggestedandeven
threatenedtostopfundingiftheyreportedontheCrystalCoxcase.

ItseemedthatevenDemocracyNowhadbeeninvolvedinquietingtheCrystalCoxstoryas
quicklyaspossibleandtheeasiestwaytodothiswastodiscreditPlaintiffCox,makeherlook
108

109

asifsheisacriminalandsomehowpaintherouttobesomekindofmonsterattackinga
"toddler".

ThereisnocleardefinitionorclearcaseprecedencethatestablisheswhoisaJournalist.The
CrystalCoxcaseisestablishingthisclarity.TraditionalmediasuchasDefendantsForbesand
DefendantsNewYorkTimeshasmassivemotivetosilence,discredit,defameandpaintblogger
PlaintiffCrystalCoxinfalselightinordertokeeptheirstronghold,theirmonopolyoverfree
speechrights,theircartel.
TheCrystalCoxcasefightsforbloggerstobequalifiedforprotectionundershieldlaws,free
speechlaws,retractionlawsandtheFirstAmendmentoftheConstitution.Andthisdirectly
affects,threatensthepowerandinfluence,thecartel,themonopolythattraditionalmediasuch
asForbesandtheNewYorkTimeshave.
PlaintiffCrystalCoxisablogger,herproduct"theNews",ContentandPlaintiff
Coxisindirectcompetitionwithherfreespeechrights,equalrightsasablogger
withtraditionaljournalists,reporters.

DefendanthaveinterferedwithPlaintiffsabilitytogenerateaddollars,abilityto
enjoininprivatecontractsandtoperformmediaservices.Thereforeasabloggerin
competitionwithtraditionaljournalists,antitrustlawsapplytotheseveredamage
thatPlaintiffCoxallegesdefendantshavedonetoher.

Allpartiestotheconspiracyaredirectlyliableforthedamagecauseto
thereputation,business,andlifeofPlaintiffCrystalCox.

DefendantsWIPO,Forbes,andtheNewYorkTimesnotonlywantbloggerstoNOT
haveequalrightsunderthelaw,theydesperatelyneedtohavethiscompetitive
edgeoverbloggersortheyhavenobusinessmodel,noaddollarsandtheygoout
ofbusiness.Thereforedefendantsneedtodefame,discreditPlaintiffCrystalCoxin
ordertotocreateandkeepamonopolyofmedia,andtherebybetheonlysource
ofnewsthatiscredible,andevenprotectedbylaw.

Thisdeemedcredibilitygivestraditionalmediaamassivecompetitiveedgeover
bloggers,overnewmedia,andovertheircompetitioninthesearchengineswhere
109

110

consumersarelookingforthisproduct,whichisthenews.

Thispowerandinfluenceoverthecourtsintraditionaljournalists,traditionalmedia
havingprotectionbylawandbywayoftheconstitutioninawaythatnewmedia,
bloggers,citizenjournalistsandwhistleblowersarenotlegallyprotected,isa
violationofantitrustlaws,competitionlawsandseekstocreateorKEEPacartel,
amonopoly,inbeingtheonlynewsthatisallowedtoreportfreelywithoutconcern
oflitigationandtherebyselladsontheirreporting,andhaveamassive,lucrative
monopolisticbusinessmodelaroundthiscontent(newsandinformation).

Thisdeemedcredibilitybylawgivestraditionalmediaamassivecompetitiveedge,
especiallyiftheyaretheonlyonesprotectedbylaw,bycourts,andbythe
constitutiontoreportthenews,information.

TheCrystalCoxcasefightsfortheequalityofsmallmedia,trulyindependent
media,bloggers,whistleblowers,andcitizenjournalistsequalityintherightto
seekaddollars,equalityinsolicitingtipsandinformation,equalityinprotection
undershieldlawsandretractionlaws,equalityundertheFirstAmendmentandfree
speechlaws,equalityundertheBillofRights,equalityincredibility,equalityin
mediacontracts,equalityinpresspassestomajorevents,equalityinearning
potential,equalityinmediacontractsandequalprotectionunderthethecourtsand
constitutionoftheUnitedStates.

Theproductisnewsandinformation,justasintheantitrustcasesoftechnologyor
theantitrustcaseagainsttheAssociationofRealtors,inthiscasetheproductis
thenewsitself.AsDefendantsForbes,andtheNewYorkTimes,aswellasother
JohnandJaneDoeDefendantsgetthenewsfromtheAssociatedPressandfrom
tipsandvariousothersources,theyusethisnewsascontentfortheirnewspapers,
blogs,websitesandvariousothermedia.Theyselladspace,createrevenuefrom
thisproductandthenewsisthereforetheproductinwhichtheyneedtocreatea
monopolyof.

ItisunlawfulandaviolationofAntiTrustLaws,CompetitionLaws,theSherman
Act,theClaytonActandtheconstitutionalrightsofPlaintiffCoxforDefendants
Forbes,andtheNewYorkTimes,aswellasotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendantsto
paintPlaintiffCoxouttobeacriminalinordertokeeptheirstrongholdasprivileged
mediaunderthelawandtherebywipeoutthecompetitionofPlaintiffCrystalCox,
whoinandamongherselfmaynoteverthreatentheseindustrygiants,however
hercaseprecedenceinObsidianv.Coxandthemediastircreatedfromitdoes
110

111

createathreattothemonopoly,thecartelthatDefendantsForbes,andtheNew
YorkTimes,aswellasotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendantshavebeenableto
enjoyfordecadesifnotcenturies.

Defendantsneedtraditionaljournalistworkingformainstreammediatoremainin
power,tokeeptheirmonopolyofmedia,andtohavemediaprivilege,reporters
privilegeandconstitutionalrightsnotaffordedtocitizenjournalists,whistleblower,
onlinefreepresspublication,andbloggers.

ThereforeDefendantshaveconspiredtodefame,discreditandevenretaliate
remorsefullyagainstPlaintiffCoxinordertoaffectpublicviewsofhercase,andto
tryandstopherappealaswellastoaffectthejudgesinvolvedinthesecases,as
notedinRandazzav.Cox,wherebyCox'sexattorneyDefendantMarcRandazza
usedthefalseanddefamatorystatementsmadetoathirdpartyconcerning
PlaintiffCoxpublishedbyDefendantsaslegalcommentaryandevidenceina
federalcourtcaseinordertoshutdownmassiveblogs,onlinemediaandseize
massiveamountsofdomainnames,ALLwithoutFirstAmendmentadjudicationand
DefendantRandazzawasabletosimplywipeoutthiscontentandcommitthese
actsbecausethejudgeinthecaseusedthefalseanddefamatorystatementsof
DefendantsForbes,andtheNewYorkTimes,aswellasotherJohnandJaneDoe
DefendantsasfactualevidenceagainstPlaintiffCox.

ItisunlawfulandunconstitutionalforbigmediacorporationssuchasDefendants
Forbes,andtheNewYorkTimes,aswellasotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendantsto
createamonopolyofFreeSpeechrightsoverPlaintiffCrystalCox,oroverany
citizenjournalists,whistleblower,freepresspublication,oranyonewhois
performingnewsgatheringactivities.

ThiscourtshoulduseDefendantForbesInc.andDefendantNewYorkTimes,as
wellasotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendantsasanexampleandsendaSTRONG
messagetobigmediacorporations,thatsuppressingthefreespeechrightsof
bloggers,independentmedia,freepress,whistleblowersandcitizenjournalistswill
notbetoleratedasamatteroflawandasamatterofconstitutionalrights.

Violatingtherightsofindependentblogsinfavorofconglomerates,majormedia
corporationsandwealthyadvertisersisunlawful,unconstitutionalandviolatesALL
idealsandantitrustlaws,aswellascompetitionlaws,theShermanActand
aspectsoftheClaytonAct.

111

112

I,PlaintiffCrystalCoxhaveownedmyownrealestatecompanyfor13years.As
mybackground,careerwiseisRealEstate,I,plaintiffCrystalCoxlikenthe
antitrustactionsofDefendantstotheDepartmentofJusticesuingtheNational
AssociationofRealtorsinantitrustviolationsInU.S.v.NationalAssociationof
Realtors.Belowaresomedetailsofthatcase,toillustratethecommonalitiesand
ascaselawprovidinginformationregardingtheantitrustelementstotheactions
ofDefendantsinthiscasecausingdirectharmtoPlaintiffCoxandtobloggers,new
media,independentnews,freepressandcitizenjournalistsingeneral,asamatter
oflawandprecedence.

"U.S.v.NationalAssociationofRealtorsCivilActionNo.05C5140,COMPETITIVE
IMPACTSTATEMENT"

"PlaintiffUnitedStatesofAmerica("UnitedStates"),pursuanttoSection2(b)of
theAntitrustProceduresandPenaltiesAct("APPA"or"TunneyAct"),15U.S.C.
16(b)(h),filesthisCompetitiveImpactStatementrelatingtotheproposedFinal
Judgmentsubmittedforentryinthiscivilantitrustproceeding.

NATUREANDPURPOSEOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
Overview.TheUnitedStatesbroughtthislawsuitagainstDefendantNational
AssociationofRealtors("NAR")onSeptember8,2005,tostopNARfrom
violatingSection1oftheShermanAct,15U.S.C.1,byitssuppressionof
competitionfromrealestatebrokerswhousetheInternettodeliverrealestate
brokerageservices.NAR'spoliciessingledouttheseinnovativebrokersanddenied
themequalaccesstotheforsalelistingsthatarethelifebloodofcompetitionin
realestatemarkets.ThesettlementwilleliminateNAR'sdiscriminatorypoliciesand
restoreevenhandedtreatmentforallbrokers,includingthosewhousetheInternet
ininnovativeways."

DefendantForbesInc.andDefendantNewYorkTimes,aswellasotherJohnand
JaneDoeDefendantshaveviolatedSection1oftheShermanAct,15U.S.C.1,
bydefendantssuppressionofcompetitioninthebusinessof"media",ofnews
dissemination,reportingthenewsandusetheInternettodelivertheseservices,
suchasPlaintiffCoxandotherindependentnewssourcesusingtheinternetto
delivertheserviceofbringthenewstothepublic.

112

113

TheCrystalCoxseekstoeliminatediscriminatoryactions,laws,andrightsafforded
totraditionalmediasuchasDefendantsForbesandDefendantNewYorkTimes.
Thereforedefendantshaveconspiredtodiscredit,defame,harass,andintimidate
PlaintiffCoxandpaintherouttobeacriminalwhoisnotworthyofprotectionunder
thelawsthattraditionalmediaisprotectedunder.

The"U.S.v.NationalAssociationofRealtorsCivilActionNo.05C5140,
COMPETITIVEIMPACTSTATEMENT"goesontosay:

"NAR'sChallengedPolicies.OnMay17,2003,NARadoptedits"VOWPolicy,"which
containedrulesthatobstructedbrokers'abilitiestouseVOWstoservetheir
customers,asdescribedbelowinSectionII.Afteraninvestigation,theUnited
StatespreparedtofileacomplaintchallengingthisPolicy.

OnSeptember8,2005,NARrepealeditsVOWPolicyandreplaceditwithits
InternetListingsDisplayPolicy("ILDPolicy").NARhopedthatthischangewould
forestalltheUnitedStates'challengetoitspolicies.NAR'sILDPolicy,however,
continuedtodiscriminateagainstVOWbrokers.AspartofitsadoptionoftheILD
Policy,NARalsorevisedandreinterpreteditsMLSmembershiprule,whichwould
haveexcludedsomebrokerswhousedVOWs,asdetailedbelowinSectionII.
(NAR'sVOWandILDPolicies,includingitsmembershiprulerevisionand
reinterpretation,arereferredtocollectivelyinthisCompetitiveImpactStatement
asNAR's"ChallengedPolicies.")

Asanassociationofcompetitorswithmarketpower,NAR'sadoptionofpoliciesthat
suppressnewandefficientcompetitiontothedetrimentofconsumersviolates
Section1oftheShermanAct,15U.S.C.1."

DefendantForbesInc.andDefendantNewYorkTimes,aswellasotherJohnand
JaneDoeDefendantshaveusedtheirmarketpowertoruinanddiscreditPlaintiff
Coxandtocreateamonopolyoffreespeechrights.Defendantshaveusedtheir
113

114

marketpowerandinfluenceinordertoinfluencepublicperceptionandopinionof
PlaintiffCrystalCoxandtherebytheObsidianv.Coxcaseandusethisperceptionin
ordertocreateaworldviewofjustwhohastherightfultitleofmedia,journalistand
reporterandthelawfulrights,privilegesandconstitutionalrightsthatcomewithit.

DefendantForbesInc.andDefendantNewYorkTimes,aswellasotherJohnand
JaneDoeDefendantsusetheirpowerandclouttosuppressnewandefficient
competitionintheareaofnewsmedia,andthisisadetrimenttothenews
consumingpublicwhohasarighttoconsumerindependentmedia,independent
newssourcesinafreeandcompetitivemarketplace.

DefendantshaveviolatedSection1oftheShermanAct,15U.S.C.1.

DefendantForbesInc.andDefendantNewYorkTimes,aswellasotherJohnand
JaneDoeDefendantshavediscriminatedagainstPlaintiffCoxinpaintingherin
falselightinordertoaffectpublicopinionofherfreespeechcasethatfightstogive
bloggers,citizenjournalists,whistleblowersandonlinefreepressequalrights
underthelawasthoseintraditionalmedia.

Uponmyknowledgeandbelief,thepurposeofthisactionistocreateandtokeep
themonopolythatDefendantForbesInc.andDefendantNewYorkTimes,aswell
asotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendantshaveonfreespeechandprotectionunder
thelawsandconstitutionalrightsthatdonotseemtoapplytobloggers,citizen
journalists,whistleblowersandonlinefreepress.

The"U.S.v.NationalAssociationofRealtorsCivilActionNo.05C5140,
COMPETITIVEIMPACTSTATEMENT"goesontosay:

"TheAmendedComplaintallegesthatNAR'sadoptionoftheChallengedPolicies
constitutesacontract,combination,andconspiracybyandbetweenNARandits
memberswhichunreasonablyrestrainscompetitioninbrokerageservice
marketsthroughouttheUnitedStates,inviolationofSection1oftheShermanAct,
114

115

15U.S.C.1."

"IntheAmendedComplaint,theUnitedStatesaskstheCourttoorderNARtostop
violatingthelaw.TheUnitedStatesdidnotseekmonetarydamagesorfinesthe
lawdoesnotprovidefortheseremediesinacaseofthisnature."

Defendantsinthiscaseseektounreasonablerestraintsoncompetitionbywayof
suppressingthetruthabouttheCrystalCoxcaseandpaintingPlaintiffCoxinfalse
anddefamatorylightinordertoaffectpublicopinionofCrystalCoxherselfand
distractfromthemeritsofthecasewhichaffecttheverylifeforce,foundationand
businessmodelofDefendantsForbes,DefendantsNewYorkTimesandJohnand
JaneDoeDefendants.

Defendantsseektokeepthestronghold,thenormofbigmediaconglomerates
havingspecialrightsandprivilegesunderthelawandtheconstitution.Defendants
havetraditionallyrelieduponrules,lawsthatkeeptheircartel,theirmonopolyof
freespeech.Defendantscannotbeallowedtocontinuetounreasonablyimpede
competitionamongmediasources,mediumsofcommunicationandharm
consumersofnewsandinformation.SeeUnitedStatesv.RealtyMultiList,629
F.2d1351,1371(5thCir.1980).

DefendantForbesInc.andDefendantNewYorkTimes,aswellasotherJohnand
JaneDoeDefendantspunish,defameandobstructtheinnovationsofPlaintiff's
efficient,Internetbasedtoolsandonlinemediatechniquesusedtobring
independentnewsandinformationtothepublic,thosewhoarenewsconsumers,
andthosewhoarethetargetaudiencefortheadrevenueplacedonthisnews
(content).Defendantsseektomonopolizetheindustryofbringingthenewsto
consumers.

DefendantForbesInc.andDefendantNewYorkTimes,aswellasotherJohnand
JaneDoeDefendantshaveattemptedtosuppressthebenefitsofinnovationand
competitionfromreachingconsumers,andthusviolateSection1oftheSherman
Act,15U.S.C.1.

REMEDIESAVAILABLETOPOTENTIALPRIVATELITIGANTS
Section4oftheClaytonAct,15U.S.C.15,providesthatanypersonwhohas
beeninjuredasaresultofconductprohibitedbytheantitrustlawsmaybringsuitin
federalcourttorecoverthreetimesthedamagesthepersonhassuffered,aswell
115

116

ascostsandreasonableattorneys'fees.

PlaintiffCoxwishestheDepartmentofJusticetobringactionagainstDefendants
aswell,inordertoSTOPthemonopolyoffreespeechinwhichDefendantsForbes,
DefendantsNewYorkTimesandotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendantscurrently
seemtohaveandareruininglivesandbusinessessuchasthatofPlaintiffCox,in
ordertokeeptheircartel,theirmonopolyinnewsgatheringandpublicationofthat
newsandinformationtothepublice.
Newsshouldbeofthepeoplebythepeopleandallwhogatherandbringthenews
tothepublicshouldhaveequalprotectionunderthelawandtheconstitution.
DefendantsNewYorkTimesandotherJohnandJaneDoeDefendantsshouldnot
havespecialmediaprivilege,journalisticprivilege,reportersprivilegetobedeemed
amorereliable,crediblesourceofnewsandinformationsimplybecausetheyare
workingfororownalargenewscorporation,aconglomerate,acartel.

Independentmediaisoftenthemostaccuratesourceofnewsandinformationthat
thenewsconsumingpublichasaccessto.Especiallyifthisnewsandinformationis
inregardtoallegationsofcorruptlawyers,lawfirms,judges,politicians,trustees,
authorityfiguresandcourtproceedings.

IfDefendantsareallowedtokeeptheirmonopoly,theircartel,thenthetruly
independentnewswillbeSILENCEDforever.IftheCrystalCoxcaseceases,and
cannotmoveforwardorPlaintiffCrystalCoxherselfispaintedouttobesomeone
notworthyofequalprotectionunderjournalistprivilegelaws,thenDefendants
keeptheirstronghold,theirmonopolyonfreespeech,andkeeptheirpowerand
rightsoverfreepress,bloggers,citizenjournalistsandwhistleblowers.Thiswould
beaseriousviolationoftheconstitutionalrightsofeverynewsconsumingcitizen,
EVERYWHERE.

DefendantsForbes,DefendantsNewYorkTimesandotherJohnandJaneDoe
116

117

Defendantsshouldnothavemorerightsunderthelawortheconstitutionormore
powerandinfluenceinbringingthenewstothepublicatlargesimplybecausethey
aretheoldestandlargestpredominantMediaorganisationsandinfluential
newspapers,newssourcestraditionally.

DefendantsForbes,DefendantsNewYorkTimesandotherJohnandJaneDoe
Defendantsshouldnothavesuperiorrightsjustbecausetheyarebigger,richer,
moreestablishedandhavemorecloutandpoliticalbacking.Thisbehavior,these
actionsareaviolationofPlaintiff'srightstofaircompetitionandaviolationof
antitrustlawsandtheconstitutionalrightsofPlaintiffCoxandsubsequentlyofthe
rightsofALLinvestigativebloggers,citizenjournalists,whistleblowers,andfree
pressinnewmedia.

ItisaviolationofantitrustlawsforReporter'sprivilegetoonlyapplytotheoldest
andlargest,wealthiest,influentialnewspapersandpredominantMedia
organisations.

DefendantshaveinterferedwithfaircompetitionregardingPlaintiffCrystalCox.

DefendantshaveviolatedTheShermanAntitrustAct(ShermanAct,[1]July2,
1890,ch.647,26Stat.209,15U.S.C.17)anddirectlydamagedPlaintiff
CrystalCox.Defendantshavecreatedananticompetitiveenvironmenttoprevent
PlaintiffCoxandsubsequentlyallbloggersandothernewmediafromcompeting
fairly.

WealthyconglomeratessuchasDefendantForbesandDefendantNewYorkTimes
donothavethelawfulorconstitutionalrighttosuppresstherightsofindependent
media,blogs,freepressandmoderninternetpublicationsofindependentnews.

U.S.antitrustlaws,competitionlawfocusontheprotectionofcompetitionrather
thancompetitorssuchasDefendantsForbes,DefendantsNewYorkTimesand
117

118

otherJohnandJaneDoeDefendants.ThiscourtshouldgrantPlaintiffCoxallrelief
allowedunderthelaw,inordertofirmlyestablishthatcompetitioninthenews
industryshouldbeahealthy,vibrant,competitivemarketplacejustastechnology
andrealestate,asthisisofthebestinterestofeverynewsandinformation
consumingcitizen.

MediaconglomeratessuchasDefendantForbesandDefendantNewYorkTimes
shouldnothavemorepowerandinfluenceoverwhatisnewsandwhoisa
journalistbylawandbyconstitutionalrights,thendoindependentonlinenews
sources,suchasblogs.

AntiTrustlawsaredesignedtopromoteconductwhichencouragescompetition,
evenseverelyso,butagainstconductwhichunfairlytendstodestroycompetition
itself.ThefocusofU.S.competitionlaw,isonprotectionofcompetitionratherthan
competitors.

ShermanAct,21Cong.Rec.2456.Itwasinthissenseofpreventingrestraintson
commercialcompetitionthatCongressexercised"allthepoweritpossessed."
AtlanticCleaners&Dyersv.UnitedStates,supra,286U.S.435.

AtAddystonPipeandSteelCompanyv.UnitedStates,85F.2d1,affirmed,175U.
S.175U.S.211

AtStandardOilCo.ofNewJerseyv.UnitedStates221U.S.1,221U.S.5458.
DefendantsForbes,DefendantsNewYorkTimesandotherJohnandJaneDoe
Defendantshaveengagedinanticompetitiveconductandhavetherebyviolated
TheShermanAct.

118

119

DefendantsForbes,DefendantsNewYorkTimesandotherJohnandJaneDoe
Defendantsactionsareanticompetitiveinnature.Thusattempttopreventviolate
theShermanAct.

TheShermanActSection1States:
"Everycontract,combinationintheformoftrustorotherwise,orconspiracy,in
restraintoftradeorcommerceamongtheseveralStates,orwithforeignnations,
isdeclaredtobeillegal."[14]

TheShermanActSection2States:
"Everypersonwhoshallmonopolize,orattempttomonopolize,orcombineor
conspirewithanyotherpersonorpersons,tomonopolizeanypartofthetradeor
commerceamongtheseveralStates,orwithforeignnations,shallbedeemed
guiltyofafelony[...]"[15]

Defendantshaveengagedinintentionalmisconductandconspiratorialconductof
thekindforbiddenbySection1oftheShermanAct,orSection3oftheClaytonAct.

ClaimofRelief

PlaintiffCrystalL.Coxreallegesandincorporatesallofthepreviousparagraphsintheir
entirety.

FalseandDefamatoryStatementswere,withoutadoubt,madebyDefendantstoa
ThirdPartyConcerningPlaintiffCrystalCoxandhavecausedPlaintiffCrystalCox
harm.ThereforePlaintiffCoxisentitledtorecovery.

PlaintiffCrystalL.CoxRequestsajudgmentagainstEachDefendantforactualand
punitivedamages,andallotherreliefallowableunderthelawandfederalcourtrules.

PlaintiffCrystalL.Coxseeksreliefof100MillionDollarsinDamagesEACHfromDefendants
ForbesInc.,NewYorkPublicRadio,NewYorkTimes,SequenceInc.,Defendant

MultnomahCountySheriffOffice,and150JohnandJaneDoeDefendant(s).
119

120

PlaintiffCrystalL.Coxseeksreliefof10MillionDollarsinDamagesEACHfromDefendant

KevinD.Padrick,DefendantDavidS.Aman,DefendantKashmirHill,DefendantDavid
Coursey,DefendantStevenWilker,DefendantTonkonTorpLawFirm,Defendant
RandazzaLegalGroup,DefendantMarcJ.Randazza,DefendantBobGarfield,
DefendantDavidCarr,DefendantPeterL.Michaelson,DefendantFrancisGurry,
DefendantEricWilbers,DefendantTracyL.Coenen,DefendantJordanRushie,
DefendantMulvihillandRushieLLC,DefendantJasonM.Jones,DefendantDaniel
Staton,DefendantMarshallRoss,RoxanneGrinage,and150JohnandJaneDoe
Defendant(s).

WHEREFORE,PlaintiffprayforjudgmentagainstDefendantsasfollows:

A.Findinginfavorofplaintiffontheirclaimforrelief

B.Awardingplaintiffdamagesagainstdefendantsintheamountasstatedabove.

C.Awardingplaintifftheircostanddisbursementsincurredinthisaction

D.Permanentlyenjoiningdefendantsfrompublishingfalseanddefamatorystatements
concerningplaintiff.

E.GrantingsuchotherandfurtherreliefastheCourtfindsjustorequitable.

PlaintiffCrystalCoxhasbeenimmeasurably,irreparablydamagedbythefalse
anddefamatorystatementspublishedtoathirdpartyconcerningPlaintiffCox,by
Defendants.

PlaintiffCoxhassufferedharmtoherintellectualproperty.

PlaintiffCoxhassufferedimmeasurably,irreparabledamagetoherbusiness,trade,
profession,andoccupation.

PlaintiffCoxhassufferedlossofearningcapacity.

PlaintiffCoxhassufferedharmtoherpersonalreputation,professionalreputationand
businessreputation.
120

121

PlaintiffCoxhassufferedharmtoherpersonalrelationships,stateofmindandquality
oflife.

PlaintiffCoxisentitledtoreceivereasonablecompensationforharmtoreputation,
humiliation,ormentalsuffering,evenifplaintiffdoesnotpresentevidencethatproves
actualdamages.Thisisbecausethelawpresumesthattheplaintiffsufferedthese
damages.

ThereforePlaintiffCoxisentitledtoallrecover,compensation,andreliefdeemed
appropriateandallowedbylaw.

ExhibitDirectory

ExhibitsbelowwillbeenteredintotheCaseoncePlaintiffCoxhasElectronicaccess

ExhibitADefendantTracyL.Coenen,DefendantSequenceInc.Falseand
Defamatory
Statements.

ExhibitBDefendantJordanRushie,DefendantMulvihillandRushieLLC,Falseand
DefamatoryStatements.

ExhibitCDefendantMarcRandazza,FalseandDefamatoryStatements.

ExhibitDOregonAttorneyGeneralLetter

ExhibitEDefendantWIPO,DefendantPeterL.Michaelson,FalseandDefamatory
Statements.

ExhibitFDefendantBobGarfield,NewYorkPublicRadio,FalseandDefamatory
Statements.

ExhibitGArticleTitled"UglyNewReputationSmearingTactic:GoingAfterAToddler's
InternetFootprint",Dated,04/02/12quotesDefendantKashmirHill

ExhibitH,NewYorkTimesArticleDavidCarrFalseandDefamatoryStatements.
121

122

ExhibitIDefendantKashmirHillFalseandDefamatoryStatements.

ExhibitJDefendantDavidCourseyFalseandDefamatoryStatements.
Dated,January02,2012,TitledYouBeTheJudgeAreBloggersJournalists

ExhibitKSaltyDroid,JasonJonesFalseandDefamatoryStatements.

ExhibitLJudgementRecord,$2.5Million

ExhibitM,GodaddyeMails/ExhibitN,WIPOeMails

ExhibitO,WIPODecisionPublication

NoteToCourt:Documents/MotionsAttachedtoThisComplaintareasFollows:

MotiontoProceedinFormaPauperis,inFormaPauperisAffidavit,CivilCoverSheet,
CoverLetter,MotiontoFileElectronically,CertificationofECFKnowledge

SubmittedRespectfullyby

ProSePlaintiff
CrystalL.Cox
(406)6249510
POBox2027
PortTownsend,WA98368

CertificateofService:

IherebycertifythatIservedtheforegoingonMay24th,2013

Mailedto:

WilkieD.Ferguson,Jr.
UnitedStatesCourthouse
122

123

400NorthMiamiAvenue
Miami,FL33128

SubmittedRespectfullyby

ProSePlaintiff
CrystalL.Cox
(406)6249510
POBox2027
PortTownsend,WA98368
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

123