Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group has abused Nevada SLAPP Laws for personal gain.
As a matter of law there is no way, no reason that Crystal Cox's former attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group should have sued her. Yet he did and got Judge Gloria Navarro to give him massive blogs and domain names and to change the server and redirect them all WITHOUT First Amendment Adjudication, to Marc Randazza's blog post that defamed his former client Crystal Cox.
Check out the District of Nevada's DENIAL of Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group SUMMARY Judgement against Crystal Cox. The court clearly shoots down all his gibberish.
Randazza had no Trademark when he sued Crystal Cox. Even if he did, he cannot use Trademark Law to chill speech, yet that is exactly what he did and Judge Gloria Navarro of the District of Nevada plus Peter Michaelson of WIPO allowed Randazza Legal Group, and Marc Randazza, as well as Ronald Green to do just that.
Marc Randazza is NOT above the Law. Crystal Cox has proved that without a doubt. And now we have a Nevada |SLAPP law scuffle. As Marc Randazza clearly sued Cox in a frivolous Nevada SLAPP Suit, yet when she sues him in a counterclaim of Malpractice and Defamation he cries protection under Nevada SLAPP and does so years after he initially sued her and well past the 60 day deadline. The courts rule against him and he is now whining to the Ninth Circuit.
Click the Links Below for more on the NINTH Circuit Whine by Marc Randazza regarding using Nevada SLAPP laws to attempt to Deny the rights of a former client he sued, defamed and caused irreparable harm, by using Nevada Anti-SLAPP Law.
Now We See this Headline
''Nevada May Be About To Lose Its Great Anti-SLAPP Law''
''We've mentioned many times the importance of anti-SLAPP laws in protecting people who are being sued solely to try to shut them up. It's still a travesty that we don't have a federal anti-SLAPP law but are reliant on various state anti-SLAPP laws.
In case you're not familiar with them, SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation." Anti-SLAPP laws basically allow people who are sued to quickly get lawsuits dismissed when it's obvious that the entire point of the lawsuit is to silence whoever is being sued, rather than for any legitimate legal purpose. For years, California was seen as having one of the best anti-SLAPP laws, but in recent years both Texas and Nevada upped the ante in anti-SLAPP laws, making them even stronger. Nevada's had a particularly useful feature: it would award "reasonable costs, attorney's fees and monetary relief" for defendants who were wrongfully hit with SLAPP suits. Basically, it provided a real deterrent against SLAPP suits. ''
Full Article and Source
Marc Randazza hit blogger Crystal Cox with a SLAPP suit and she was NOT given any rights. Now Marc Randazza wants to deny legitimate counter claims against his bad behavior as her former attorney, by ABUSING NEVADA Anti-SLAPP Laws.
Looks to me like Marc Randazza will not win his appeal at the NINTH, seems now he has 20 days and so many changes to the overreaching laws he wrote and made money from.
Here is the Nevada SLAPP 444 Senate Bill (a Game Changer for Whiny Randazza)
Full Docket of Nevada SLAPP Lawsuit Marc Randazze filed against
former client Blogger Crystal Cox. http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html
A Bit More on Senate Bill 444
''Section 5 of this bill requires a special motion to dismiss to be filed within 20
21 days of service of the complaint, and to be limited to the issue of whether the claim
22 arises from a communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to
23 free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern. If the court
24 determines that such a claim does not arise from a communication in furtherance of
25 the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of
26 public concern, section 6 of this bill requires the court to deny the special motion to
27 dismiss. If the court determines that the claim does arise from a communication in
28 furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection
29 with an issue of public concern, section 7 of this bill requires the plaintiff to
30 establish prima facie evidence supporting each and every element of the claim other
31 than elements requiring proof of the subjective intent or knowledge of the
32 defendant. Section 7 further requires the court to determine whether the plaintiff
33 has established such prima facie evidence within
34 plaintiff’s filing of briefs and supporting evidence.''
Read the Whole Document at the Link Below