Contact
Subscribe


The New York Times Has Crystal Cox's Number Now

Apr 2, 2012
By .
Irksome, Law, WTF?

Late Friday night I posted my analysis of Crystal Cox's vengeful and freakish assault on Marc Randazza. I discussed how her "oh look I registered a domain in your name, I need money, do you need reputation services" closely resembled a seemingly extortionate email she sent to a previous target of her wrath. I also pointed out the main thing you need to know to evaluate what Crystal Cox is: when she gets mad at you, she'll buy a domain in the name of your three-year-old child as part of an attack on you.

In that post, I argued that the best private response to the sort of gibbering evil Crystal Cox offers is more speech, not litigation. Marc Randazza — whose own three-year-old daughter is a target here — is taking the more-speech road. It works. For example, today David Carr at the New York Times posted a piece about Cox and her behavior, revealing that after his critical piece about her last year she launched a domain attacking him.

Some evidence suggests that this weekend Cox bought up a bunch of new domains. No doubt she'll launch new vile attacks on her growing number of critics. I registered domains in the names of my children, but who knows, maybe she found variations on my name, or my business, or my children's names that I did not anticipate (or could not reasonably afford to buy). That's what she is. That's what she does. Treat her accordingly.

Edited to add: looks like Forbes gets her, too. Note that she also started sites attacking the Forbes reporter based on his prior article on her.

Last 5 posts by Ken White

53 Comments
Tags ,

49 Comments

  1. Andrew S.  •  Apr 2, 2012 @8:29 am

    I've always wondered what goes through the mind of somebody like Ms. Cox when she does things like registering domain names. I just can't figure out what she seeks to accomplish. But whatever it is, drowning it out with more speech is always good.

  2. Dan Weber  •  Apr 2, 2012 @8:49 am

    There is a sane game-theory to going over the top against an opponent. It signals other people that you are crazy and shouldn't be messed with.

  3. Josh  •  Apr 2, 2012 @8:53 am

    Andrew: It's scare and extortion tactics, plain and simple. To me it's not terribly difficult to understand. She's just being a bully and that's all there is to it. She has a business model, if you can call it that, and it's one that could quite easily be definied (as others have already said) as extortionist and mafia-esque. Ken's written a lot on the mindset of scam artists, and I'd honestly not put her in a much different category. To do the sorts of things she seems to have done (buy up domains, solicit her services, and then begin doing the very things she claims to help protect against) reeks of scam artistry, and all the connotations that carries.

    It also reeks of being a despicable human being, but that's just my personal moral judgment, completely unsupported by any factual information.

  4. Christoph  •  Apr 2, 2012 @8:54 am

    Where are the authorities?

    She needs to be charged criminally so she can be stopped, the public can be protected, and so others can be deterred from such stalking behaviors and protection rackets.

  5. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Apr 2, 2012 @9:02 am

    My hope for Ms. Cox, as I find out more and more about he sleazy behavior, is that she try her extortion on somebody able to make the following interoffice memo come true;

    "Ms. Cox,

    While you were out two large gentlemen named Guido and Nunzio came by. They muttered something about "Kneecaps" and will call again."

  6. SarahW  •  Apr 2, 2012 @11:13 am

    I have to think she's mentally ill. Which is, of course, no reason she cannot also be vile and even criminal.

    I was searching about for a Popehat tip bucket where I might toss a few coins for PACER fees. Can a regular direct me to one?

  7. Ken  •  Apr 2, 2012 @11:33 am

    Thanks for the thought, SarahW, but we don't have a tip bucket. If you appreciate what we've done, you can always make a donation to one of the free speech entities we like, such as FIRE.

  8. Dustin  •  Apr 2, 2012 @11:42 am

    This is so evil. Sadly, families are not off limits when it comes to thugs.

    I agree with Dan Weber that the impact of this kind of thuggery is many people will think twice before speaking up. So many people will weigh crusading against internet thugs against their children's interests and just decide to take a pass on this. That must be frustrating for the victims.

  9. Marc J. Randazza  •  Apr 2, 2012 @11:57 am

    C.S.P. Schofield wrote:

    My hope for Ms. Cox, as I find out more and more about he sleazy behavior, is that she try her extortion on somebody able to make the following interoffice memo come true;

    "Ms. Cox,

    While you were out two large gentlemen named Guido and Nunzio came by. They muttered something about "Kneecaps" and will call again."

    Please DON'T ask for or encourage or even joke about that kind of thing. As her only known Sicilian victim, I know that if she winds up meeting with some kind of accident, there will be conjecture that I had something to do with it.

    Plus, remember that we are the good guys. What you should hope for is that the truth about her will be repeated far and wide — and thus, she'll be incapable of doing this to anyone else.

  10. Jess  •  Apr 2, 2012 @12:39 pm

    Yep – she will do herself in all on her own – she is a superstar at it really.

  11. Christoph  •  Apr 2, 2012 @1:24 pm

    Plus, remember that we are the good guys. What you should hope for is that the truth about her will be repeated far and wide — and thus, she'll be incapable of doing this to anyone else.

    If it was just lying, yeah. But lying combined with being willing to destroy the reputation of kids — far before they have an opportunity to counter the bad online rep with a real good one — and extorting people for "protection" — this should spell a criminal trial.

  12. Laura K  •  Apr 2, 2012 @1:55 pm

    (for the two cents it's worth in Maui) I'm with Mr. Randazza (whose name I am now pretty sure I've mangled multiple times. Sorry!)

    Something like the thug scenario could bite someone on the ass and the beauty of roving psycho-social trainwrecks like Ms. Cox is that they are so willing to nuke their own credibility, etc…

  13. AlphaCentauri  •  Apr 2, 2012 @2:14 pm

    I'm waiting for Google to get Crystal Cox's number and to suppress her sites from being artificially pushed up in their rankings. Google does have algorithms to correct for abuse that makes their search engine less useful for people looking for legitimate results. They don't accept public abuse reports about it (because the abuse reports were abusive, go figure). But the numbskulls that hire forum spammers that promise to get their site on the first page of Google are disappointed to find that bump only lasts a few hours before their sites sink into oblivion.

  14. Ken  •  Apr 2, 2012 @3:31 pm

    Yeah, C.S.P., that comment is going to show up in court documents saying we are threatening her with violence. Use some fucking common sense here.

  15. Ken  •  Apr 2, 2012 @4:23 pm

    Ok, sorry, that was a little harsh. But she twists everything everyone says, and that sort of thing, even meant in fun, will be used as a weapon against people who stand up to her. Please avoid it.

  16. Jack B.  •  Apr 2, 2012 @4:28 pm

    Ok, sorry, that was a little harsh. But she twists everything everyone says, and that sort of thing, even meant in fun, will be used as a weapon against people who stand up to her. Please avoid it.

    … besides, you wouldn't want to get sued by Joe Lieberman, would you?

  17. Base of the Pillar  •  Apr 2, 2012 @5:09 pm

    This behavior seems… odd. For someone who has seemingly crafted her wording to avoid straight-up extortion, isn't she creating that very pattern of "I'll get you" behavior that you described last time? This isn't heads up poker; you don't need to go all-in to "not lose".

  18. Christoph  •  Apr 2, 2012 @5:10 pm

    Sued?! Lieberman could open a Chuck Norris-like can of whoop-ass if he was in the mood. Don't mess with Liebs.

  19. Christoph  •  Apr 2, 2012 @5:11 pm

    Some people do feel that need, Base. Also, yes it's odd. But that's the point, really, isn't it?

  20. hlmd  •  Apr 2, 2012 @5:13 pm

    "…While you were out two large gentlemen named Guido and Nunzio came by…."

    Do I spy a reference to Bob Asprin's Myth series in the names of your hypothetical henchmen ? (I think a big slobbery kiss from Gleep would be much less pleasant, and wishful thinking thereof might be less likely to tarnish our good guy hats.)

  21. JRM  •  Apr 2, 2012 @6:16 pm

    Fun fact: eugenevolokhsucks.com was registered in December…. by Eugene Volokh. I think someone has figured out how this show ends each time.

    (I guess I should note here that Eugene Volokh is my favorite blawger by a bundle, and I'm pretty sure Ken will take no offense at being ranked below the chief conspirator.)

  22. Christoph  •  Apr 2, 2012 @6:57 pm

    Ha ha.

    That's classic. Shows he hasn't lost it. He knows what's up with Cox.

  23. Ken  •  Apr 2, 2012 @7:12 pm

    Oh, look, she's writing about me now. Apparently suggesting that there's something wrong with going after a foe's three-year-old child is "whistle blower retaliation." Vile nutjob.

  24. Ken  •  Apr 2, 2012 @7:15 pm

    Also new from Crystal:

    It is Illegal for Judge Marco Hernandez to have Denied Me, Pro Se Defendant Blogger Crystal Cox the admission or denial of a Conflict of Interest when Court Documents show for an Entire Year that I asked countless times, Demanded that Judge Hernandez of the Portland Oregon District Court Sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure, which he has to this day refused. Meanwhile Judge Hernandez is conspiring to accuse me of Criminal Behavior, in a "Decision", the Motion to deny Crystal Cox a New Trial, Judge Hernandez accuses me of extortion without the facts of the Email in question, without the trial being about this email and thereby denying my right to due process. I will be filing a Judicial Complaint, a Criminal Complaint, an FBI Complaint, Bar Complaints, and a complaint with the Oregon Judicial Disqualification Committee.

  25. Jess  •  Apr 2, 2012 @7:31 pm

    Poor Crystal she seems to think if she says something enough times, somehow that will make it true. Hallmark of the bat-shit crazy everywhere. I suggest a few new titles – Crystal Cox Reverend of the Ridiculous, Blogger of Bull Shit. Geez could this woman be any more self deluded?

  26. Mercury  •  Apr 2, 2012 @8:39 pm

    Hey, everyone is Saul Alinsky now. The Trayvon Martin circus isn't exactly being conducted with much more decorum.

    Maybe this crazy woman just never got over all the "crystal" and "cox" domain name variations she had to run through before she hit on one that wasn't taken.

  27. Andrea Harris  •  Apr 2, 2012 @9:37 pm

    All I can think is why does she capitalize every other freaking word? Does she think this is the eighteenth century?

  28. Christoph  •  Apr 2, 2012 @10:20 pm

    That's some client Eugene Volokh has got himself there.

  29. Christoph  •  Apr 2, 2012 @10:25 pm

    Surely going to the ninth circuit with a client who wasn't engaging in a protection racket and stalking 3 year olds would have been preferable.

  30. Christoph  •  Apr 2, 2012 @10:28 pm

    I will be filing a Judicial Complaint, a Criminal Complaint, an FBI Complaint, Bar Complaints, and a complaint with the Oregon Judicial Disqualification Committee.

    I'm sure they won't see that as abusive at all.

  31. Christoph  •  Apr 2, 2012 @11:17 pm

    I <3 Kashmir Hill (but don't worry, I won't stalk ya … I'm just waiting for you to come to me … lol)

  32. Narad  •  Apr 2, 2012 @11:17 pm

    The posting of four paragraphs of random and not infrequently misspelled keywords on her blog was chilling.

  33. Christoph  •  Apr 2, 2012 @11:46 pm

    I just watched the first few minutes of one of her videos, Narad, talking about Hernandez' calling for an FBI investigation of her (good if true).

    She is, as I suspected, of fairly high, but nowhere near genius, IQ. At a guess, 115 or so. She's clever but nuts.

    However, she's wicked at Poetic Capitalization from the Bygone Age as Emulated by a sociOpathic Extortionist.

  34. G Thompson  •  Apr 3, 2012 @12:10 am

    It seems that my posting on Tumblr has not only gotten in top 10 searches on Google (geekhideout for the win!) looking for "Crystal Cox" but some individual(s) have taken it upon themselves to create a tumblr page about the sorry situation. [found whilst looking at who reblogged my posts]

    http://crystal-cox.tumblr.com

    I have to admit I LOL'd and also found out that transcripts from American courts are as boring as they are in Australia. Whodathunkit! ;)

  35. Scott Jacobs  •  Apr 3, 2012 @1:03 am

    Also new from Crystal:

    You know she's right by how she randomly capitalizes words.

  36. Scott Jacobs  •  Apr 3, 2012 @1:23 am

    Wow… Just. Just wow…

    I've never been to her blog before, but having gone just now, let me just say that I think she is utterly unhinged. Like, full-bore bugfuck nuts.

    She makes Sonny the Coco Bird look like Dan Rather.

    This is EXACTLY the sort of person we did NOT want on trial about "is a Blogger a Journalist", because she is very nearly the worst kind of blogger – You know, the kind that is only a blogger because some asshole went and stole their favorite street corner, where they would scream inane and mildly scary crap at anyone that came within earshot.

    No kidding, I've interacted with some scary crazy people, but this is one for the books. I'd make sure the doors were locked at night, the animals all inside, and the household weapons within easy reach, as she strikes me as the type to try to break into your house in the middle of the night.

  37. G Thompson  •  Apr 3, 2012 @1:47 am

    Scott:
    Random capitalization could be caused by a slight Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or a form of Dysgraphia (a common learning disability). Though I suspect it is more a form of self expression and trying to place emphasis on specific points. or just as I suspect Batshit Craziness.

    And you went there to read as well? eek take two strong drinks and if pain exists in the morning please consult your nearest therapistbartender for more

  38. VPJ  •  Apr 3, 2012 @5:38 am

    I skimmed one of her pages last week. Took three days of heavy drinking to drive the insanity from my brain

    YMMV , of course

  39. Christoph  •  Apr 3, 2012 @7:13 am

    Honestly, this is not increasing my respect for Professor Eugene Volokh.

    Whom I like, by the way, for other reasons,

  40. Christoph  •  Apr 3, 2012 @7:33 am

    You sell Crystal Cox short, Ken. Looking at her main site's masthead, I see she is not just a self-styled "Investigative Blogger" and "Reputation Manager" as you have inexplicably implied. Oh no. She is an "Altruistic Investigative Blogger, Reputation Manager, Real Estate Advocate" [because real estate might get sad if it had no one to stick up for it]

    You left off the "Altruistic" part. Guys, never forget that Crystal L. Cox is doing what she's doing not for herself or her profit or ego — oh no — she's doing it for the benefit of us all.

  41. JRM  •  Apr 3, 2012 @7:44 am

    Christoph, let me defend Volokh:

    1. She's a bloody awful client, and it may well be that the downside outweighs the upside. So let's get out front on that now.

    2. She's a terrible person. I think a lot of the insanity is calculated; she seems to me to be an extortionist.

    OK, that's not too good. Let's get to the meat:

    3. The original opinion was not good for legitimate bloggers. While it wasn't a citable precedent (assuming I've got my law right in a jurisdiction I don't practice in), it's alarming. The logic used could easily chill actual newsgathering bloggers.

    4. I have read through much of the trial transcript, and the whole thing looks like a mess. Ms. Cox had a fool for a client, and this led to a ruling that needed fixing (even if the result didn't.)

    5. Two good things have happened from Prof. Volokh's representation. First, the judge dialed back his original opinion some (IMO), adding a little more focus to the extortion portion of this racket rather than the blogger part. Second, other judges may well hear of this and set the bar differently.

    Now, I wouldn't have the option to represent her, but a hypothetical me who could have wouldn't have under all of these circumstances. But in general, if I disagree with Eugene Volokh, Bayes and Aumann suggest that I rethink my disagreement because I'm probably wrong.

  42. Christoph  •  Apr 3, 2012 @9:51 am

    First, the judge dialed back his original opinion some (IMO), adding a little more focus to the extortion portion of this racket rather than the blogger part. Second, other judges may well hear of this and set the bar differently.

    I concede the first part. Not sure about the second.

    But I don't think this case was a big deal as such. And I share Jason M. Jones (Salty Droid)'s and Marc Randuzza's concern that this is just asking the ninth circuit to draw the line, and there's no good reason to think they'll draw it in the right places. I agree with them that this is not the best case to bring there.

  43. Roho  •  Apr 3, 2012 @11:28 am

    I see that a similar domain has been registered for you (not going to link it, in case it actually is hers, but basically F your given name . com), as of Sunday. It's with GoDaddy, same as her past registrations, but is using GD's DomainsByProxy private registration service. So either someone decided to beat her to the punch, or she's ever so slowly learning, like a flatworm. I find myself wondering how quickly she goes through keyboards, what with all the pounding out of righteous indignation and flying spittle.

    So, have you been approached with reputation management service offers yet? And I wonder, if it is her – what are her annual expenses for 'spite domains'? Are those tax-deductible?

  44. Ken  •  Apr 3, 2012 @11:29 am

    That was me, Roho.

  45. Christoph  •  Apr 3, 2012 @12:09 pm

    I wonder, if it is her – what are her annual expenses for 'spite domains'? Are those tax-deductible?

    Good point. She'd just argue it's for her altruistic investigative reporting work, but if it's in conjunction with the criminal enterprise of (alleged) extortion, is she allowed to claim them as deductions?

    I'm guessing yes and she would/should be declaring her income, but it's just a guess.

  46. Scott Jacobs  •  Apr 3, 2012 @4:35 pm

    That was me, Roho.

    Huh. I would have guessed it was your wife. :)

  47. DrthVd3r  •  Apr 3, 2012 @5:00 pm

    In case you hadn't seen, this has gotten coverage on Slashdot.

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/03/2026240/smearing-toddler-reputations-via-internet-free-speech-or-extortion

  48. John David Galt  •  Apr 4, 2012 @10:06 pm

    My theory is that she's under the delusion she's a lawyer. Unlike (even real) journalists, lawyers actually do have state licenses to practice extortion.

  49. Jess  •  Apr 6, 2012 @2:10 pm

    I know exactly what you mean John. Case in point Ingrid and Kurtis Webb Vs Brad Stockford. https://docketdb.com/public/docket/11-0149

    Backstory here – defendant in the original suit Ms. Werner is a personal friend of mine. The original suit was bogus and the plaintiffs, specifically Ingrid Webb had a history of filing lawsuits (this was her 4th). She had worked at an attorney's office in the past (although not as an attorney or even a paralegal) and so therefore thought she was as smart as a lawyer. Smart enough gal but still not a lawyer (reminds me of Ms. Cox).

    What had happened ultimately is that Ms. Werner's attorney contacted Brad Stockford the Plaintiffs attorney the night before this went to trial to ask him about his expert testimony since none of this had been provided to defendants attorney despite requests. At this time it Mr. Stockford (a personal injury attorney with no expertise in real estate law) realized he was NOT going to win the case. And he would not have -I know because I was privy to evidence on the defendants side as well as all of the depositions. Additionally we had the inspection report of the inspector hired independently by the Plaintiffs (the Webbs), and it was crystal clear this thing would not have stood up in court. Add on top of that the fact the Webbs could prove no actual damages.

    The Webbs are serial lawsuit filers and Brad Stockford in my opinion is an incompetent lawyer. Based on the interogatories alone he should have been able to easily determine his client's case was bogus. But, like certain lawyers (not all – there are good lawyers) he figured he would attempt to intimidate my friend (ie extort) her out of $100,000 + taking the house back that she had sold to Plaintiffs.

    After dealing with Plaintiffs suit against him for incompetence, I'll bet he is regretting ever taking the case in the first place. Although the fact that 5 other attorneys including his partner McCreary had passed on it previously should have been a clue.

    The sad thing is my friend lost 40K defending herself against a lawsuit that should never have been filed in the first place. She would have gone back after the Webbs for damages, but it was determined the effort wasn't worth the risk they would not be able to pay the damages + attorney fees. Like Ms. Cox it makes them dangerous – they have nothing to lose so it's easy for them to go to screw someone else. Just to give you an idea of what the Webbs were like, Ingrid would park outside of my friends house and make harrassing phone calls to her.

4 Trackbacks