In an admitted conversation with Eugene Volokh, Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group agreed to "bow out", If I wanted Eugene Volokh UCLA Law Professor to represent me in the case.
So in this private conversation between them and without my, the clients, knowledge or consent, the questions begs "Why would he have to "bow out" if he did not believe he was my attorney or was not acting as my attorney" ?
Why would one attorney tell another attorney they will bow out of a case if they have no representation of the person they are claiming they will "bow out" in regard to? Or connection to the case?
An attorney would not have to "bow out" and STOP his negotiations if he did not think he was representing that person, that "client".
Attorney Marc Randazza DID represent Crystal Cox, me, and he did act unethically, and I allege illegally and he violated my constitutional rights and rights as a client.
.gif)
Below you See Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group stating that he told Eugene Volokh he would "bow out".
You also CLEARLY see that Randazza was talking of a "settlement" being in my best interest and of allowing Volokh to co-counsel.
Yet Randazza CLAIMS he did not Represent Me, Crystal Cox
INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
Did you have phone conversations with Eugene Volokh and state that you represented Cox and discuss with him your strategy, or a deal you were trying to make with the opposition, Plaintiff’s attorney David Aman?
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
"Counterdefendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not limited in time and scope, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Counterdefendant further objects because this interrogatory is in excess of the 25 allowable
interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result,
Counterdefendant is not required to respond to the same. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Counterdefendant responds as follows:
Counterdefendant spoke with Eugene Volokh in December 2011.
Randazza informed Volkokh that if he was going to represent Cox, that Randazza would gladly "bow out", and defer to Volokh to handle the case.
Volokh, however, said that he would prefer that Randazza co-counsel the case with him due to Volokh’s stated lack of litigation experience. Counterdefendant and Volokh discussed possible strategies that he and Volokh thought might be good ideas during that call.
Counterdefendant and Volokh both discussed the fact that Cox’s interests would be better served through settlement."
Source ( Page 18 )
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiM0hkaW9IYVV2VGc/view?usp=sharing
(Riddled with Lots of Other LIES, more on that Later)
Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group not only agrees to "bow out" but admits to be in a negotiation with Eugene Volokh to Co-Counsel.
What gave Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group that special power and privilege, that client / attorney privilege, if he did not believe he was already representing me, Crystal Cox?
How could he legally or ethically offer to co-counsel with Volokh on my behalf, if he did not represent me and without my, the CLIENTS, specific permission?
Also, why would Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group discuss co-counsel with Eugene Volokh if he had not already told Eugene Volokh that he represented me, Crystal Cox?
Why in the world would Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group discuss a "settlement" with Eugene Volokh as admitted above, if he did not believe he was representing me, Crystal Cox or acting as my attorney?
Marc Randazza clearly admits to discussing that a settlement is best for me, and seemingly who cares what I, the client thinks. He admits to being my counsel and saying he will bow out. He offers to allow Volokh to co-counsel. And yet tells the courts he did not represent me, Crystal Cox? Really? WOW.
You clearly see above, Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group admitting to negotiating on behalf of Cox, in a way to see if a "deal" could be made with the Plaintiff in my case.
Yet Marc Randazza did not get my permission to do so nor tell me the deal. He took my strategy, led me to believe I could trust him then went to the other side in my case and tried to make a deal that I DID NOT WANT.
If he was not engaged in all of the above as my attorney than under what power, privilege and authority was he doing this?
More eMails, Discovery, Declarations,
Motions and information on the
"Did Marc Randazza Represent Crystal Cox" Saga
Coming SOON.
More on the Hypocrisy of Attorney Marc Randazza
http://randazzalegalgroupies.blogspot.com/2014/12/first-amendment-attorney-marc-randazza.html
Check out the Full Docket Below of Randazza v. Cox and the Counterclaim of Defamation and Malpractice against Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html
No comments:
Post a Comment