"MarcRandazza.com Domain Name Dispute. Marc Randazza and the Czech Arbitration Court Domain Name Dispute. Marc Randazza thinks he is above the Law and can take whatever he WANTS. Regardless of the Law or the Constitutional Rights of others. Expose Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group"

"Marc Randazza is a self proclaimed First Amendment Attorney, and many believe Marc Randazza is an advocate of Free Speech. Marc Randazza has very good connections regarding who to pay, and how to play within the First Amendment Bar and the Free Speech Laws, but Marc Randazza is no Champion of the First Amendment.

Marc Randazza has done all he can to turn on the Free Speech Rights of a woman whom he wanted to represent in a major Free Speech Case and whom turned him down because he treated her badly.

I am that woman and since this time, nearly a year ago now, Marc Randazza has stolen domain names, filed protective orders, got entire blogs at wordpress and blogger deleted with no warning and has used his power and connections to attack my Free Speech Rights, and stomp on the First Amendment Rights of All.

Marc Randazza has threatened me, conspired to set me up with criminal charges, painted me in False Light, lied about me to Forbes, defamed me, incited a lynch mob against me, and all because Marc Randazza did not approve of a Domain Name I purchased and I rejected Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group as my Attorney.

I want to sue Marc Randazza for painting me in false light, for defamation, for lying to major media and therefore causing harm to my income potential, endangering my life, causing me duress and more. If you an attorney who is NOT afraid of Marc Randazza, please email me Crystal L. Cox to represent me in a suing Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group.

Marc Randazza, appears to me to have mafia ties and is VERY Dangerous.

Marc Randazza is knowledgeable in First Amendment Laws and has many connections, affiliations and conflicts of interest.  Marc Randazza uses this knowledge in order to get his clients and potential clients to bend to his will.

Marc Randazza is a very dangerous man and is connected to stalkers in the Porn Industry whom threaten Porn Stars.  Marc Randazza threatened one of my sources in a private forum, she therefore stopped speaking about Marc Randazza.  Marc Randazza told where she lived, what she drove and wished death upon her.

Marc Randazza is not a good man and must be Exposed. Email me at SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com to Expose Marc Randazza and to Parody Marc Randazza.

Two New Blogs will Expose Marc Randazza

ExposeMarcRandazza.com  and MarcRandazzaParody.com

Below is a Letter eMailed to me Regarding my Rights to Own MarcRandazza.com - Marc Randazza, King of Free Speech Suppression, steals Domain Names and Intellectual Property that Marc Randazza was to dumb to buy or to build. And Marc Randazza will relentless attack you if you demand your First Amendment Rights.

""Dear Crystal,

You and I share a common enemy. I hate that copyright troll shit Marc Randazza. I saw that he filed a domain name dispute against you in the CAC. I am pretty sure that the connection he has with the Czech Republic is that his wife is Czech. Since he obviously has some sort of criminal ties, I wouldn't be shocked if it was that far-reaching.

At any rate, I've dealt with these kinds of things before, and I thought I would offer you a bit of help since I know first-hand how expensive these things can get. I got a copy of his complaint, and I did a lot of research for you and put together a response for you to argue to the CAC that the complaint against you should be dismissed. I hope that it helps you out. Good luck to you.

Introduction

Complainant Marc Randazza has improperly filed a UDRP complaint with the Czech Arbitration Center. Jurisdiction in the CAC is not proper because neither the respondent nor the complainant have ties to the Czech Republic. In addition, Complainant Marc Randazza has ties to illegal activity and Ms. Cox has a right to freedom of speech.

Facts
In late 2011, complainant Marc Randazza approached respondent, Ms. Crystal Cox, about representing her in an appeal of a judgment against her in the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Randazza then went behind Ms. Cox's back and began speaking with the opposing party without Ms. Cox's permission, and Ms. Cox terminated their professional relationship. Cox has absolute evidence that Randazza conspired to set her up in a criminal case and that he conspired with the corrupt judge in the case so that her rights would be violated. For this reason alone, the complaint must be dismissed. 

Randazza has known ties to organized crime, is a criminal, and is suspected of participation in a number of unethical acts. He has been a representative of the pornography industry, thus demonstrating a lack of moral character. In his representation of pornographers, he has set up Gay teenagers for suicide, has extorted millions of dollars from innocent parties, and uses his law license as a tool of cyber bullying, terrorism, and criminal activity. This prosecution is the latest in a long line of his incredible acts of moral turpitude and crime. Not only should the complaint be denied, but the Czech Arbitration Court should impose sanctions upon Randazza under Czech Code which provides for sanctions of attorneys who bring frivolous actions against innocent parties. 

1. Elliot Bernstein is not a proper party to this case.

Elliot Bernstein is not a proper party to this case, and for that reason the claims should be denied. Bernstein is the registered name owner of two of the domain names, but as the Court can see, Cox is the publisher of them. BUT, the actual case has to be brought against the real name holder or the party in interest, but it is up to the Complainant to make that distinction. Under ICANN Rule 3.7.7.3, Randazza could have simply asked Bernstein to reveal the underlying owner, and Bernstein would have done so. But, since Randazza was too lazy to do this, his complaint has a fatal flaw that can never be overcome. 

2. Jurisdiction in the Czech Republic is not proper because neither party meets the sufficient minimal contacts test.

Due Process requires that, in order for a forum to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that "he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend „traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.‟" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310, 316 (1945). Because neither Randazza nor Cox reside in the Czech Republic, this court has no jurisdiction over either of them, nor over this dispute. 

The Supreme Court of the United States (A country of which both Randazza and Cox are citizens) has held that before a court has the power to exert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that defendant must "Purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). 

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires certain "minimum contacts" between a nonresident defendant and the forum state in order that "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," are not offended. See International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). This "Purposeful Availment Test" examines whether the defendant's voluntary actions reasonably and foreseeably create liability in the forum state. See World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). This Test protects a defendant from being haled into another state (or country's) court unjustly. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76 (citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984); World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 299 (1980)).

The minimum contacts constitutional requirement serves two objectives: "[I]t protects against the burdens of litigation in a distant or inconvenient forum" unless the defendants contacts to the forum state make it just and fair to force him or her to defend a cause of action, and "it acts to ensure that the states, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as co-equal sovereigns in a federal system." See World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980). 

Plaintiff Randazza seeks exactly what the due process clause prohibits, a discard of any notion of due process in order to punitively subject the Cox to litigation in an inconvenient forum. 

DUE PROCESS AND FIRST AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF CYBER JOURNALISM

As noted above, the Plaintiff's position demonstrates a a desire to continue unethical behavior to set up the Defendant. Randazza might thing that due process is not due to Cox, this is not the case in real life or on the Internet. Using technology to lead to "the eventual demise on all restrictions on the personal jurisdiction" can not stand. See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 250-51 (1958) (citing Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877), and International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). To determine jurisdiction in the Internet age, the Court must recognize that the Internet is not restricted by distance or state boundaries. See, e.g., Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 851 (1997) ("Cyberspace is accessible to anyone, located anywhere, with an Internet connection"). 

The world wide nature of Internet use makes it a unique mode of communication unlike newspapers, mail, radio, television, and other media. See Millennium Enterprises, Inc. v. Millennium Music, LP, 33 F.Supp.2d 907, 914(D. Or. 1999). Speech on the Internet targets no jurisdiction in particular and everyone in any geographic location. See Id. 

Given Internet, and the special position granted to matters of free speech, the Court must recognize that this case touches upon time-worn legal issues in a manner not thoroughly resolved the existing law. See generally, David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 STAN. L. REV. 1367, 1370 (1996) ("Cyberspace has no territorial based boundaries, because of the cost and speed of message transmission on the Internet is almost entirely independent of physical location"). 

Even if an internet speaker sought to avoid jurisdiction in a certain country, there is little to nothing that he could do in order to limit his Website's accessibility in a selected state where the publisher may wish to avoid jurisdiction. See Geoffrey Nunberg, The Internet Filter Farce, found at http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/1/nunberg-g.html. (January 1, 2001) (Discussing the limitations and failures of filtering technology) (last visited, October 17, 2004). 

THE "EFFECTS TEST"

The predominant pre-internet test for jurisdiction, occasionally relied upon in the internet context is the effects test as established by Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). In this case, an editor and a writer for the National Enquirer, both residents of Florida, were sued in California for libel arising out of an article published in The Enquirer about Shirley Jones, a resident of California. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The United States Supreme Court upheld the determination of personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they had "expressly aimed" their conduct towards California. Id. at 789. 

Relying on the fact that The Enquirer had its largest circulation in California, distributing over 600,000 copies of its publication in that state, the court noted that the defendants knew the harm of their allegedly tortuous activity would be felt there. Id. at 789-90. 

A key distinction in the case at bar is that the The National Enquirer was availing itself of the privilege of operating in California, as it shipped 600,000 copies into that state. 

The National Enquirer purposefully availed itself of the business of doing business in California when it delivered both subscriptions and newsstand copies with a great degree of regularity into that state. If The National Enquirer wished to avoid the likelihood of being haled into a California court, the publication could simply cease publication in California, but its publication in all 49 other states would be unfettered. 

If this court were to accept a simplistic interpretation of Calder in an Internet context, a nonresident defendant would always be subject to jurisdiction in the Czech Arbitration Court simply because the plaintiff's wanted to bring a claim in the Czech Arbitration Court. See, e.g., Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. 

Power Co., 253 F.3d 865 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, given the nature of the internet, the only way to avoid jurisdiction in any country would be to not speak on matters critical of any entity in any other country - an end result that would chill free speech to an extent impermissible by the First Amendment. This would, in effect, result in this Court licensing "one side of a debate to fight free style, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules." See R.A.V. v. City of Saint Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). 

This is a position which is counter to the protections of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment. See Id. Accordingly, if this court chose to apply the effects test, this case should most certainly fail due to the strong distinction between the print medium evaluated in Calder and the internet medium in the case at bar.

THE "ZIPPO TEST"

Many courts have taken notice of the unique qualities of the Internet when making decisions regarding personal jurisdiction. The most commonly used approach to determine whether purposeful availment exists in a Website context is the so-called "Zippo Test." This Test was originally articulated in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). 

In this case, the Western District of Pennsylvania concluded that "the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet." Id. at 1124.

 The court described a sliding continuum for the evaluation of whether jurisdiction should attach. At one end of this spectrum are defendants that clearly conduct business over the Internet. For example, a defendant that may knowingly and repeatedly transmit computer files over the Internet into a forum state, thus creating jurisdiction. Id. (citing Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996). 

This test has been met with extensive approval in World wide, but especially in Florida, where Randazza's law firm is based out of.   See, e.g., Miller v. Berman, 289 F.Supp.2d 1327 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (applying the Zippo Test and rejecting jurisdiction in circumstances where the defendant published a web page accessible in Florida, but did not regularly conduct business in the State of Florida); Hartoy, Inc., v. Thompson, 2003 WL 21468079 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (unpublished opinion recognizing and applying the Zippo Test); Miami Breakers Soccer Club, Inc., v. Women's United Soccer Ass'n, 140 F.Supp.2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (applying the Zippo Test to a passive Website and rejecting jurisdiction); J.B. Oxford Holdings, Inc., v. Net Trade, Inc., 76 F.Supp.2d 1363, (S.D. Fla. 1999) (applying the Zippo Test and rejecting jurisdiction over a Website that provided the ability for readers to email questions to the defendant, download demonstrations from the defendant, and receive free information about day trading from the defendant). 

At the opposite end of the spectrum are simple passive Websites which are merely accessible by users in all jurisdictions. These passive Websites do little more than make information available to any who may be interested in receiving the information and do not create sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction to attach. See Zippo at 1124 (citing Bensusan Rest Corp. v. King, 937 F.Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). See also Lofton v. Turbine Design, Inc., 100 F.Supp.2d 404, 409 (ND Miss. 2000) (publication of allegedly defamatory material on a website, under the due process clause, does not create sufficient contacts with the forum state since the site was passive and not designed to attract business); Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (web page accessible in the forum state, causing potential harm in the forum state does not create liability in the forum state).

In the middle are interactive Websites where users can exchange information with the host site. In all but the clearest cases, an evaluating court must make a finding that the defendant is somehow expressly targeting internet users in the forum state and not just making itself accessible to everyone. Mere interactivity, without more does not slide the scale toward establishment of minimum contacts. 

See, e.g., Bancroft and Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (Interactivity is insufficient by itself, there must be "express aiming" at forum state); Hy Cite Corp. v. BadBusinessBureau.com, LLC, 297 F.Supp.2d 1154, 1161 (W.D. Wis. 2004). "However the ultimate question remains the same, that is, whether the defendant's contacts with the state are of such quality and nature such that it could reasonably expect to be haled into the courts of the forum state." Id. It is clear that the law does not allow jurisdiction over Crystal Cox in the Czech Republic! Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

The purposeful availment requirement is established if the defendant purposefully creates sufficient minimum contacts with Florida in order to create "a substantial connection" with this state. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76. The whole constitutional reason for "purposeful availment" requirement is so that the decisions of all states have some measure of predictability and notice that they may be subject to suit in a foreign jurisdiction. See World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, at 297 (1980). If citizens believe that the risks of litigation in a fora are too likely, citizens of other states may sever any connection to unfavorable forum states. Id. at 297. 

As discussed above, since Cox is technologically unable to limit where in the world her cyber-journalism and Citizen Journalism would be accessed, it is a pre-internet mode of thinking that the defendant could have severed connection to the Czech Republic to avoid jurisdiction here. This is simply illogical in the context of allowing free-expression to thrive without unreasonably and unlawfully chilling all speech on the internet.
Neither Ms. Cox nor attorney Randazza have the minimum contacts necessary to meet the test described in International Shoe. Attorney Randazza currently lives in Nevada, and his law firm is in Florida (and how that is ethical is uncertain). Ms. Cox is a resident of Montana. Neither of them has a connection to the Czech Republic, and Ms. Cox is certainly not "at home" in the Czech Republic. Therefore, the Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes does not have personal jurisdiction over either party, and filing the complaint in the Czech Republic was not proper. 

2. Because Complainant Marc Randazza has ties to illegal activity, he cannot claim legitimate rights to his name as a famous mark.

The doctrine that plaintiff must come into a court of equity with "clean hands" is a reflection of the equitable nature of trademark law. A plaintiff who requests the assistance of a court of equity must not himself be guilty of inequitable conduct. Furthermore, keeping in mind the equitable nature of trademark rights, "misuse" of those rights is a recognized defense. 

Misuse includes activities that may themselves be the basis of a counterclaim, for example, enforcement of a fraudulently obtained registration, and use in violation of other laws. However, at least one court has stated that trademark misuse cannot be used affirmatively. 

In his complaint, Randazza claims that he has shown that his name is a trademark because he is a public individual. HE IS a public individual, and thus his name might function as a trademark, but his name is also associated with pornography, criminality, slander, and libel. Therefore, under New York Times v. Sullivan, in order for him to win this case, he must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Cox acted with actual malice, knowing that her actions could constitute a violation of law. Since her actions had no violation of law in them, there is no possibility that Randazza can ever prevail over her under this standard. 

Further, because of Randazza's obvious ties with the mafia, he is not using his name in a legitimate manner. Ms. Cox is in fear for her life because of Randazza's ties with the Mafia. Additionally, he has sent out a ring of bloggers and stalkers to harass Ms. Cox constantly. Most notably, someone connected to Randazza threatened to break Ms. Cox's legs in a conspiracy with the well-known criminal, Kenneth White, who is a blatant apologist for Randazza. Therefore, Randazza is not making a legitimate use of his name and should not be entitled to rights to it.

Common antitrust misuse defense alleges that the suit brought by plaintiff was brought in bad faith as part of an attempt to monopolize or restrain trade or to shut down or set up an innocent party. A Plaintiff may try to combat this defense by claiming immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Under this doctrine, the plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts, which immunizes him from antitrust liability based on his filing suit against defendant. 

The immunity conferred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, however, is not absolute. There is an exception to the doctrine known as the "sham exception": if the lawsuit is a mere sham brought to harass a competitor and damage competition, it will not qualify for Noerr-Pennington immunity. Furthermore, a "no sham" ruling does not bar a later malicious prosecution suit based on false testimony not addressed by the court in the initial "no sham" ruling. 

The meaning of the "sham" exception was clarified by the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in the Columbia Pictures case. There, the Court set out a two-part test for sham:

1. the lawsuit must be objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable litigant would realistically expect success on the merits; and

2. the baseless lawsuit must conceal an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor through the use of government process.

Randazza is clearly trying to interefere directly with Cox and her business relationships. As has been demonstrated by Cox on many occasions, Randazza is a criminal minded and unethical attorney. He has conspired to set her up for extortion. He has worked with her enemies while her attorney and violated the sacred oath of attorney client privilege! How can anything ever be as unclean handed and underhanded, and 

3. Because the European Union recognizes freedom of speech, Marc Randazza should not be allowed to take the Disputed Domain Name from Ms. Cox.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Article 11 provides that "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." and "2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected." 

Further, the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 

This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises." This language is similar to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Respondent Ms. Cox is an investigative journalist who has made it her life's work to provide truthful information to the public about individuals who have acted improperly. She has a number of successful blogs where she disseminates this information to the public. She is a whistleblower and an agent of the truth.  COX IS A MINISTER, and thus NOT SUBJECT TO SUIT.

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought against Ministers, as does the Czech Constitution and the United Nations treaty on civil rights. 

Government interference with a Minister is an impermissible mixture of church and state. See Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U. S. 94; Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich,426 U. S. 696. Pp. 10-12.

(c) Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other employment discrimination laws, Courts find that suits against Ministers on matters of religious conviction are can not be maintained. The First Amendment itself, gives special solicitude to the rights of religious clergy members, of which Cox is obviously one (the domains are owned by REVEREND Crystal Cox!) 

Because Cox is a legitimate minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of this claim. The ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation. 

Conclusion

This court should dismiss the complaint because Randazza made an error about the parties, jurisdiction is not proper in the Czech Republic, Randazza is involved with illegal activity, and Ms. Cox has a right to freedom of speech, Cox is a religious minister and thus immune from suit."

Marc Randazza Email was Send to me from a Blog Reader.

Here are a Few more Blogs regarding Marc Randazza, that Marc Randazza has not had deleted or shut down YET, key word being YET.

http://www.fuckmarcrandazza.com/

http://marcrandazzafreespeech.blogspot.com/

http://www.marcrandazzasucks.com/

marcrandazzaviolatedmylegalrights.blogspot.com

http://www.bloggersrights.com/2012/03/marc-randazza-defends-rush-limbaugh-in.html

http://ethicscomplaint.blogspot.com/2012/06/marc-j-randazza-randazza-legal-group.html

http://www.defamationdefense.com/search/label/Marc%20Randazza

http://marcrandazzaegomaniac.blogspot.com/

http://marcrandazza.blogspot.com/

http://marcrandazzaliedaboutcrystalcox.blogspot.com/

MarcRandazza.com

RandazzaLegalGroupSucks.com 

Posted here by
Investigative Blogger
Reverend Crystal L. Cox
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com "

Originally Posted At
http://suppressthetruth.blogspot.com/2012/09/marcrandazzacom-domain-name-dispute.html

Since this Randazza has STOLE all those Blogs

"Troll Down: The Fight Against Big Porn and their Legal Trolls" ; Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com and Brown of White & Newhouse LLP

For Some Reason Brown of White & Newhouse LLP is very interested in this today. Someone even emailed them a link to my blog that talked about it 2 years ago. So what's up Brown of White & Newhouse LLP and Kenneth P. White of Popehat.com ? What don't you like about this online article?

"Kenneth White: Defender of Logs, Grade A Hypocrite

Ken White is another mafia-funded Big Porn goon who is the co-counsel to Marc Randazza (If Randazza is Tony Soprano, think of Ken as Salvatore Bonpensiero).

He notably engages in hypocritical behaviors which consist of, but are not limited to:

1. Calling out Crystal Cox for attacking Marc Randazza as a parent – and then doing the same thing to Chance Trahan.

2. An ‘offensive’ website that publishes images of real women naked is scum, but a bunch of ‘offensive’ logs, coal and dirt constitutes ‘art’.

3.  Marc Randazza’s defense of Manwin and Porn Valley in numerous civil cases is “first amendment protection”, but posting amateur pictures of real adults (who were not paid any money) is obviously terrible!

4.  Accusing us of profiting from people’s pain and suffering (which really is completely and entirely untrue to begin with, but I’ll roll with your premise as a hypothetical), when you work as a lawyer. Without pain and suffering, you have no clients. It’s perfectly okay for you to get paid to heal them, but when we do it, it’s terrible and wrong? Come off it. Those people transmit their pictures via the public internet.

5. Out of all the Latin phrases you could’ve picked, yours is the most homosexual in nature (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course) – the ram touches the wall? From the era of the Greeks and Romans? I’m awaiting for you and Randazza to announce that you will be coming out of the closet any second, Ken.  Be it as you have chosen “murum aries attigit” – I will choose the only valid response. Sic semper tyrannis.

6.  I don’t live my life with regrets. Apparently, you do. Your 6th major mistake is the idea that I have to explain anything about MY LIFE to anyone. How do you justify your background in representing the mafia, porn valley, and drug money? Perhaps you should show your children some of the films made by the people that you and Mr. Randazza have represented (which are far more hardcore than anything on our website), hand them an 8-ball and tell them to take a hit, or show them pictures of people who were killed by the mob or street gangs.

7. There is no moral high ground in this battle, and yet you still cling to your false moralism. Obviously, you’ve never done anything that would morally offend anyone, in your entire life. Not only are you a lawyer, you’re a saint, which explains all of the Catholic imagery on your website. And yet, I don’t see a single endorsement from any bishops, priests, dioceses, archdioceses, cardinals, patriarchs, etc. I fully believe that the papacy should also sue you, but unlike you, they’re actually doing the work of God, and thus are too busy to work for the Porn Valley mafia.

8. Either you still have that outdated belief of people as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ OR, more than likely, you’re playing on the naivete of the commoners again. How can you use a phrase from Antony as your motto – and then lecture me about good and evil? You’re a jaded cynic, just like me, and you’re fueled by money. You’d do anything or say anything to win. There’s no morality here. This is a dogfight.


9. We will teach our children not to take naked pictures of themselves, of course. Not to trust scumbag lawyers, not to live in a dump like California or Nevada.  Not to do drugs, and not to waste their lives. However, we’re also going to teach them everything we know about the world – your sons and daughters will contend with ours, for all eternity. Right? Wrong? Admirable? To who? At the end of the day, all of the morals in the world don’t fill stomachs, they don’t build homes, they don’t save lives. If you want to make an omelette, you must crack a few eggs. You know this as well as I do – it fits your modus operandi as much as it does mine. Jesus wandered in the desert and lived in complete poverty – I’m not much for that, sorry. Perhaps I’d believe you if you donated all of your earnings to a good cause, like, say, Hurricane Sandy, and lived out the rest of your life in a monastery. Some days, I think about it myself.

10.  You’ve continually stated the idea that our website is based on cruelty and abuse or some sort of revenge. Hunter Moore’s was. Eric Chanson’s is. Our website is not. It’s solely about the profit. We post people’s naked pictures for advertising revenue.

Not only is it not fun (looking at a bunch of naked people that I really have no attraction to – including many images of men), it’s time-consuming (administrating a server, as well as hours of behind-the-scenes work to make sure the ship stays afloat). I tried for years, and years, and years – to build any kind of successful business – and you are right, I was not good at it. I failed as a musician, as a karaoke builder/host, I failed as a writer, I failed as a salesman, I failed at a great many things. And now that I’ve achieved some margin of success, the competition wants to take that success away from me.

Finally, after 28 years of life, I have a real business that makes me money, I might actually be able to afford to have my teeth fixed, to deal with my countless health issues (including migraines, panic attacks and somatic disorder), I might actually be able to afford food and shelter of my own instead of being dependent. And you, who have lived high on the lamb for decades, don’t like the idea that I might actually get out from below the poverty line, because I’m taking that money from your employers in Porn Valley.

You know what Randazza offered me? $2,500. For the first successful business that I’ve ever built in my naturally born life. I told him, if the number was right, I’d gladly shut down the website and never look back – but you know, as a high-priced porn valley lawyer, that $2,500 is nothing. You can’t feed a family with that money.

Here’s an idea. If you’ve got 40 people on your side, and you all offer me $2,500 each, I’ll shut all of it down. ($2,500 x 40 = $100,000). I would then take the money, purchase a business that has nothing to do with porn (like a restaurant or a bar) and live out the rest of my days working at that gig. In fact, that’s actually the plan with our website now – once I make enough money, I can purchase the businesses I really want to own. It’s SOLELY about money, not revenge or cruelty or anything else.

11. The idea that our site picks on women. For one, that’s entirely false. You managed to pick a few abusive comments, but the majority of the comments on our website are actually compliments from appreciative viewers. In fact, the only reason that most people want to be removed from the website is that their employers are deciding to terminate them from their jobs in a lot of cases.

THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU SHOULD BE GOING AFTER. A boss who fires someone because of naked pictures on the internet. A general public that frowns upon nudity and open expression of sexuality.

For two, there’s a lot of men pictured on our website as well. That should tell you that our website is equal opportunity. So, rather than suggesting we’re bullying women, why don’t you tell the people the truth about the men that are posted on our site (or do you not care about them because they don’t fall into your ‘misogyny’ angle)? Furthermore, your associates have found naked pictures of me.

You can’t portray me as someone who would ‘not like it if someone did this to them’ because I’ve had it done to me.  It hurt – for about 3 days. Then they stopped caring and moved on. Which leads me to…

12. Eventually you and Randazza will stop caring and move on as well. There’s nothing you can do. We’re not doing anything illegal. Your employers paid you for a witch hunt.

Tell Marc Randazza to reveal who is really paying him for this – it’s probably his good buddies at Manwin. Same with you, Ken – reveal your clients instead of standing up the ‘victims’ for permanent ridicule from a frivolous lawsuit.   You’re using them on behalf of Big Porn/Porn Valley.

13. I’m not a racist, sexist, misogynist, or anything else. That would imply I specifically target people of a certain background. I’m a misanthrope, who doesn’t like people in general. I have good reason to hate people for no reason at all. I only make exceptions to the general rule (my family and a few close friends, like Chance). Everyone else? They never helped me.

Why should I feel bad about what they’ve done to themselves? I’ve turned it into a successful business. Kudos to me. You, on the other hand, are Catholic. Do the words ‘Holy Roman Empire’ mean anything to you? What about ‘Spanish Inquisition’? ‘The Crusades’?  Exactly, it’s okay when you and your people do things like that, but God forbid that I make money off of naked pictures!

14.  Posting old pictures of me and stuff I did years ago. You don’t post pictures of yourself when you were 19, Ken. All of that stuff is old. When you examine it in depth, you’re forced to realize that it’s not 2002, it’s not 2003, it’s not 2004 or 2005. It’s 2012. Rather than suggesting that I was just a born villain – why not take a look at what I gave up to get what I have? I’ve never had a decent job or a decent girlfriend in my entire life.

Now, I have a decent business – which obviously has to be illegal in your opinion, even though people have been doing what I do for years, and I’m not the first, and I won’t be the last, which generally means that the precedent is on my side, and that all of this is legal and legit – and you wonder why I’m upset? Nonsense.

You’re getting paid by Porn Valley to target me. This isn’t about your moral convictions or some higher ground, this is a dogfight, it’s a battle between sharks, there’s no good or evil here, it’s just the scumbags on our team versus the scumbags on yours. I’m not holier-than-thou about it, and you shouldn’t be either.

You send a shark to face another shark, a wolf for a wolf, a tiger for a tiger. You have the same mindset as the majority of the USA (and the world, for that matter) – you want to get something done, but you don’t want to get your hands dirty. How lazy and naive. And yet you accuse me of entitlement, I’ll assure you there’s none of that here. Nobody owes me anything. What I do is hard. It hurts on the inside, and on the outside. Massive amounts of stress and lost sleep. Unending pain and further loss of hope for humanity than I ever thought was possible.

These people do it to themselves – they are not sweet, innocent people looking for relationships, they’re looking for casual sex. A lot of them are already married. What does the Catholic church say about being married, and then looking for threesomes or casual sex on Craigslist? Sending naked pictures to total strangers, often in the first email, or outright posting them on the ad itself? I assure you that every one pictured on our website posted all of that information publicly, and thus consented from the very start. If you did not want people to see your naked pictures, you would not take them, or at the very least you would not send them.

Here’s to a glorious battle between two teams of great sharks – Is Anybody Down, Craig Brittain, Chance Trahan, Crystal Cox, Monica Foster, our legal team, all independent small business owners, all true defenders of free speech and expression, all proud citizens of the USA, anyone who isn’t voting for Obama, our friends and supporters, everyone who has submitted content to our website, everyone who loves our website, vs. Porn Valley, organized crime, Randazza Legal, Ken White, Adam Steinbaugh or whoever else you can dig up, the fall guys/girls that have to have their names listed on whatever frivolous suit you file, the liberal left, the religious extremists, and all of the people who want us to starve so we can’t feed, clothe or shelter ourselves or our families.

We are proud of what we do. If we didn’t, someone else would – we’re the very best at it. Hunter Moore won’t build a new website, and no one has any interest in Eric Chanson.

We will not falter nor surrender. Nemo me impune lacessit."

Source
https://web.archive.org/web/20121117120526/http://www.trolldown.com/2012/11/03/kenneth-white-defender-of-logs-grade-a-hypocrite/

Alexandra Mayers, Monica Foster on Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group; Marc Randazza SUED Monica Foster to SEEK Revenge. Jennifer Randazza has NO Trademark. Monica Foster has First Amendment Rights over her ART. Yet the EVIL Lawless Randazza's SUED Monica Foster for Trademark Infringement and Defamation Issues. Violent Videos Games, Art, and Parody have First Amendment Rights; well for everyone UNLESS they are making fun of, making ART or Parody of the RANDAZZA's that is.

It is CLEAR that Monica Foster's First Amendment Rights TRUMP any claim that Jennifer Randazza, PROXY, for Asshole Husband Marc Randazza, may have against media genius, professional artist, investigative blogger, porn insider and parody creator Monica Foster.

For more on Court Cases on this Topic, Check out the Link Below
http://freespeechsuppression.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-first-amendment-trumps-trademark.html

I wish that an attorney would represent Monica Foster and counter Sue the Randazza Assholes for BILLIONS, as clearly they knowingly, willfully and wanton SUED this woman outside of the LAW that they know well and are experts in. And they knew they were in the wrong. Another words they did this with "willful and wanton" deliberate intention and they are Financially Liable for Defaming, Harassing, and violating the rights of Monica Foster.

The Randazza's AGAIN abused court power and process to create victims, to TARGET those who stand up to their tyranny and abuses of the legal process. This is CLEARLY unconstitutional.

Hypocritical Asshole Marc Randazza and Lying Slut Jennifer Randazza did this to defame her, traffic her, violate her, stalk her, suppress her speech, violate her human and civil rights and they did so knowing full well that her ART, her PARODY is protected under law and the U.S. Constitution. 

Who can really STOP the Evil Reign of Randazza? 

Well perhaps only God. 

We shall see.

Here are some links on the clear FACT that Monica Fosters art creations and parody are protected under the First Amendment as Mr. Randazza and his hypocritical Evil law firm Randazza Legal Group KNOW well, as they are EXPERTS in this area of Law, ALLEGEDLY.

http://freespeechsuppression.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-first-amendment-trumps-trademark.html

"Easter 2014 - Debt Bondage, Sex Trafficking, Randazza Legal Group & the Porn Industry"

  

STOP the EVIL Tyranny of Marc Randazza and his Groupies. 

Expose Marc Randazza and his alleged Civil Conspirators I call "the Randazza Legal Group's" or the Clusterfuck federation of court manipulating fucktards.

STOP Breaking the Law Randazza

Do the Right Thing !!!

TELL THE TRUTH

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

Research Links for those Researching Cases in which 

the First Amendment Trumps Trademark

First Amendment Trumps Trademark in Call of Duty Case
http://digilaw.edwardswildman.com/blog.aspx?entry=4878


District Court Holds That First Amendment Trumps Trademark Rights
http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&newsletter=8&id=6252


When does the First Amendment trump trademark law? 11th Circuit adopts Rogers v. Grimaldi test
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=acc79d7d-9ceb-4c66-8073-2e61cd8b4362



E.S.S. Entm’t 2000 v. Rock Star Videos: First Amendment Trumps Trademark Rights
http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iess_entmt_2000_v_rock_star_videos_i_first_amendment_trumps_trademark_right


EFF to Court: A Trademark Is Not A Censorship Tool
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/eff-court-trademark-not-censorship-tool


First Amendment TRUMPS Trademark;  Big Ruling Says Using Trademarks In Artistic Works Can Be Protected Under The First Amendment
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/18230119312/big-ruling-says-using-trademarks-artistic-works-can-be-protected-under-first-amendment.shtml


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

Our speaker will discuss the expanding popularity of the Rogers v. Grimaldi First Amendment defense test and how his firm successfully used the Rogers test to defend a video game industry client in a trademark infringement action."
https://www.bostonbar.org/membership/events/event-details?ID=17092



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


When Does the First Amendment Trump Trademark Law?
11th Circuit Adopts Rogers v. Grimaldi Test
http://www.martindale.com/matter/asr-1586918.Trump.pdf


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

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



"TRADEMARK RIGHTS GIVE WAY TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION"
http://allrightsreservedblog.com/2013/08/07/trademark-rights-give-way-to-freedom-of-expression/



Roll (Over) Tide! Free Speech Trumps Trademark Rights
http://www.srlawebsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Session-44-Batista.pdf



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

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

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

Source and More
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/13/is-it-trademark-infringement-to-publish-an-online-article-with-the-title-naacp-national-association-for-the-abortion-of-colored-people/

The First Amendment TRUMPS Trademark 

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

More on Marc Randazza's Hypocrisy

http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/


Summary Judgment Denial Marc Randazza v. Crystal Cox case
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

Randaza v. Cox Docket, Including Counter Claim
Marc Randazza claimed my Gripe sites violated his ALLEGED "Trademark".
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html

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

Marc Randazza has NO Case against Crystal Cox. He flat out lied to the courts to STEAL massive online content and search engine ranking. He succeeded over and over therefore Marc Randazza controls the courts, why? Look Deep.

Oh but Snap.. 2 years into Marc Randazza's scamoid attack against a blogger he doesn't like nor approve of so he lied over and over to big media, NPR, Forbes and to multiple legal bloggers and of course his Circle Jerk Groupies so they would ruin the life of that blogger for their Hero, Riddler Randazza, the world's most hypocritical attorney.

Marc Randazza LOVES Free Speech. Oh I mean he loves to make money or get his big fat EGO stroked from defending the speech of those he supports such as a Guide on how to be a Pedophile, or say a domain name such as GlenBeckRapedandMurderedaYoungGirlin1990.com, or say defending Rush Limbaugh to call Sandra Fluke a slut,

Yet Marc Randazza painted blogger Crystal Cox out to be an evil monster for buying a domain name and never using it, oh and calling his slut wife a slut, my bad.

All simply because he wanted to teach me a lesson and make an enemy of me. But you see, I work for the HOLY SPIRIT and I am here to bring light so Mr. Darkness YOU LOSE. You have been exposed and even if your circle jerk groupies kill me, beat me, take out my knee caps, come to my town, jail me and follow through with all those threats, oh well, it's in God's hands now, the Truth is free flowing as a river to the sea of your inevitable RICO. (i like that River RICO, along the banks of Pattern and History Galore.)

Randazza v. Blogger Crystal Cox Case; Authentification of Blogs "Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, and Transcripts of YouTube Videos - Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence - Periodicals: Authentication vs. Hearsay"

This is a VERY Important Ruling in the Randazza v. Cox case regarding Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, Transcripts of Videos, and Authentication of Email Evidence. This is the ONLY Judge in about 15 plus of my cases that actual ruled on these issues as a matter of law and not simply as a matter of not wanting to offend or piss off the porn industry or the Randazza Legal Groupies.

Crystal Cox Video on Judicial Order showing that Marc Randazza SUED Crystal Cox

with no adjudicated fact, no basis in law, he really did not have a trademark, there was no confusion, there was no commercialism by Crystal Cox and well it's clear to see Randazza sued Crystal Cox as an act of REVENGE, Intimidation and Harassment.

"Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, and Transcripts of YouTube Videos — Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence — Periodicals: Authentication vs. Hearsay

Randazza v. Cox, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49762 (D. Nev. April 10, 2014):

This cybersquatting case arises out of the alleged targeting of Plaintiffs Marc Randazza, his wife Jennifer, and their young daughter Natalia, by Defendant Crystal Cox, a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger." The Randazzas allege that Cox and Defendant Eliot Bernstein have engaged in an online harassment campaign to extort them by registering dozens of internet domain names that incorporate the Randazzas' names and then demanding they agree to purchase Cox's "reputation management" services to remove this allegedly defamatory material from the internet and rehabilitate their cyber reputations. Cox maintains that this lawsuit was instituted to harass her and stifle her First Amendment freedoms  [*2] of speech and expression.

The Randazza Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their claims against Cox. But as one of those claims is legally untenable, and genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the remainder, their motion is denied. Cox has pending her own motion for summary judgment on her original "Counter-Complaint," which has since been stricken and supplanted (in part) by a new amended counterclaim. ***

In November 2012, the Randazzas sued Cox and Bernstein alleging violations of individual cyberpiracy protections for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 8131,  [*3] cybersquatting for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), their right of publicity under NRS 597.810, their common law right of publicity, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. The claims were based on allegations that Cox and Bernstein registered several domain names containing Plaintiffs' names, that Cox's blog posts contained objectionable characterizations of the Plaintiffs, and that these acts were designed to extort and harass the Randazzas and capitalize on and damage the goodwill Marc Randazza claims he built up in his own name as a prominent First Amendment attorney.

Bernstein has not appeared or answered the allegations, but Cox has. She contends that she registered the domain names to control public relations information when she thought Marc Randazza would represent her in another lawsuit. Cox also strongly objects to Plaintiffs' characterization of her motivation and actions as "extortion."

The tortured history of this case is rife with procedural maneuvering by both sides. All parties have disrupted the Court's timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the orderly administration of justice by sandbagging the docket  [*4] with multiple impertinent, legally unsupported, and frivolous filings. The instant motions were not spared from these tactics. Despite Mr. Randazza's self-proclaimed prominence as a First Amendment attorney and being represented by independent counsel, Plaintiffs have failed to authenticate more than half of their proffered exhibits in support of their motion; and half of the authenticated ones are immaterial to this motion. Equally confounding is that pro seCox has submitted a 255-page nonsensical summary judgment motion and a 183-page opposition to Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, neither of which includes any relevant legal authority or complies with this Court's rules of procedure and evidence. In short, all parties have fallen far short of sustaining their initial summary judgment burdens and both motions are denied.

A. Authentication of Evidence

The first step in analyzing these motions is to determine what evidence the Court may consider in evaluating whether the parties met their respective burdens. In Orr v. Bank of America, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "made it clear that 'unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for summary judgment.'"⁶ To authenticate  [*5] a document, the proponent must offer "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.'"⁷ As the summary judgment procedure is the pretrial functional equivalent of a directed-verdict motion, it requires consideration of the same caliber of evidence that would be admitted at trial;⁸ thus, it is insufficient for a litigant to merely attach a document to a summary judgment motion or opposition without affirmatively demonstrating its authenticity.

6   Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 533 (9th Cir. 2011) (citingOrr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 733 (9th Cir. 2002).

7   Las Vegas Sands, 632 F.3d at 532-33 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)).

8   Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (citing Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 745 n.11 (1983)).

***

1. Periodicals

Plaintiffs offer at Exhibit B an article from Forbes Magazine. Printed material "purporting to be a newspaper or periodical" is self-authenticating.¹¹ Thus, this article is self-authenticating. Its contents, however, are hearsay not subject to any exception. Accordingly, the periodical is not admissible for summary judgment purposes.

11   Fed. R. Evid. 902(6).

2. Websites

Few courts have considered how a website print-out or blog posting may be authenticated. Those that have considered the issue have found "website print-outs [were] sufficiently authenticated where the proponent declared that they were true and correct copies of pages on the  [*8] internet and the print-outs included their webpage URL address and the dates printed."¹²

12   Haines v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 1:10-cv-01763-SKO, 2012 WL 1143648 *7 (E.D. Cal. April 4, 2012).

The websites contained in Exhibits E, K, Q, R, S, and T have been properly authenticated under this standard because Plaintiff Marc Randazza has attested that they are true and correct copies and the print-outs include the webpage URL address and the dates the websites were printed. However, Plaintiffs have not authenticated any of the purported website contents in Exhibits D, G, M, O, and P. Although Mr. Randazza has attested that these exhibits are true and correct copies and the print-outs include the webpage URL address, absent are the dates the webpages were printed. Without the print dates, these website printouts have not been properly authenticated, and the Court will not consider them.

3. Letters, Emails, and Text Messages

A document may be authenticated by personal knowledge "by a witness who wrote it, signed it, used it, or saw others do so."¹⁴ Although circumstantial evidence--like an email's context, email address, or previous  [*9] correspondence between the parties--may help to authenticate an email,¹⁵ the most direct method of authentication is a statement from its author or an individual who saw the author compose and send the email.¹⁶

14   Orr, 285 F.3d at 774 n.8 (citing references omitted).

15   United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2000).

16   United States v. Fluker, 698 F.3d 988, 999 (7th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiffs have authenticated the letter sent from Mr. Randazza to Defendant Bernstein presented in Exhibit A by Randazza's affidavit stating that he wrote and signed the letter. Similarly, Mr. Randazza's curriculum vitae and the "About" page of his blog attached as Exhibits I and J have been properly authenticated because Mr. Randazza is a person with personal knowledge and he wrote his curriculum vitae and the "About" page of his own blog. Plaintiffs have also authenticated via circumstantial evidence the emails between Cox and Mr. Randazza contained in Exhibit H because the email contains sufficient indicia of authenticity by context, the email addresses, and previous correspondence between the parties.

But Plaintiffs have not authenticated the purported emails between Cox and Dylan Energy CEO  [*10] Martin Cain contained in Exhibit C. Although Plaintiffs attempt to authenticate Exhibit C via circumstantial evidence, there is a gap in the email chain. Mjr@randazza.com purportedly received the forwarded email from matt.baer@dylanenergy.com; savvybroker@ yahoo.com (the email associated with Cox) sent the email to dylanchpmc@verizon.net. Therefore, it is unclear how the person in control of the email address matt.baer@dylanenergy.com came to be in possession of an email originally addressed to dylanchpmc@verizon.net. Without some explanation of the gap in this email chain by someone with personal knowledge, there is insufficient circumstantial indicia of authenticity for the Court to consider this document.

Plaintiffs have not authenticated the text message screen shot in Exhibit A either. The screen shot purporting to be a text-message exchange between Messrs. Randazza and Bernstein has not been authenticated because it does not have circumstantial indicia of authenticity. It is unclear which phone numbers sent or received the messages or to whom those phone numbers belonged when the screen shot was taken, or who took the screen shot. Without this type of supporting evidence, the  [*11] Court cannot consider the text message in Exhibit A.

***

5. YouTube Video

Exhibit N is a transcript of a YouTube video. The single court having addressed how to authenticate a Youtube.com video, albeit in a criminal context, found that videos from the online video network are self-authenticating as a certified domestic record of a regular conducted activity if their proponent satisfies the requirements of the business-records hearsay exception.²⁰ To meet this exception, the evidence must be accompanied by "a certification of their custodian or other qualified person that satisfies three requirements: (A) that the records were 'made at or near the time by--or from information transmitted by--someone with knowledge'; (B) that they were 'kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business'; and (C) that 'making the record was a regular practice of that activity.'"²¹

20   United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 132-33 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding the YouTube  [*13] video in question was self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902 business records).

21   Id. at 133.

The transcript of the YouTube video contained in Exhibit N has not been properly authenticated. Although Mr. Randazza has attested that it is a true and correct copy of a transcript of a video posted on YouTube.com, he has not established that he is a person with personal knowledge who prepared the transcript, nor has he established when it was prepared and that it is complete and accurate. 

To the extent that the YouTube.com video itself is offered as evidence, it similarly has not been authenticated because Plaintiffs have not proffered the certificate of YouTube's custodian or other qualified person verifying that the page had been maintained as a business record in the course of regularly conducted business activities. Without this certification, the video has not been properly authenticated and cannot be considered.

With these evidentiary limitations, the Court now turns to the merits of Plaintiffs' summary judgment arguments."

Source
 http://www.jha.com/us/blog/?blogID=2777

Link to Motion Denying Summary Judgement
http://ia800304.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf