Crystal Cox: Not A Free Speech Advocate

Print This Post

You may also like...

100 Responses

  1. anony-mouse says:

    You really need to read this interesting comment set
    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2764185&cid=39568267

    in conjunction with this
    http://crystal-cox.tumblr.com/post/20454997010/slashdot-gets-in-on-the-situation

    It goes beyond Obsidian/Summit, way beyond it seems.

  2. PLW says:

    She sure does have a lot of complaints. Oops, sorry, a lot of Complaints.

  3. Scott Jacobs says:

    "extreme hate, harassment and intimidation"

    Shouldn't that be "extreme Hate, Harassment and Intimidation"?

  4. plutosdad says:

    I have an ex girlfriend just like her. She is full of wrath and hate and spite, always the victim, everyone is out to get her, always crying and whining.

    It only lasted about 2 months. Not sure what I was thinking. But after we broke up, she kept emailing and calling telling me to stop stalking her and that I was scaring her. SHE called ME to tell me that.

    The only thing I can think of is these people have Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

  5. Matthew Cline says:

    From her motion to exclude a witness:

    This is of record in Montana courts, yet defendant is denied those records by Lincoln County Montana county attorney Bernie Cassidy, Sheriff Roby Bowe and Defendant is denied protection by that same court as well as by Ravalli County Montana Judge Robin
    Clute, the Hamilton Montana police department, University of Montana police, Missoula Montana Police, and Eureka Montana Police.

    Wow, it's like some weird mutation of the Midas touch: everyone she touches becomes a conspirator against her.

  6. John Kindley says:

    Well said. I agree. She is not a free speech defender for the reasons you explain. Her attorney however most certainly is, as you have said.

  7. Windypundit says:

    It's getting to the point where I can't see you write "Crystal Cox" without thinking it should really be "Blogger Crystal Cox."

  8. There is no questioning EV's free speech bona fides. I've said before, and I stand by it, that if by some fucked up accident I became POTUS, the first guy I'd tap for SCOTUS would be Volokh.

    I am, however, not pleased to see that she's going to take this to the 9th Circuit. She's not about free speech, she's about ego and insanity. I find it unfortunate that EV can't convince her not to appeal. Naturally, if she's going to appeal, I'd rather someone like EV handle the appeal than let her go pro se and fuck everything up worse than she did in the trial court.

  9. Coyote says:

    what's the betting line on Volokh, after spending hours pro bono defending this woman, finding himself the subject of one of Ms. Cox's lawsuits?

  10. Scott Jacobs says:

    It only lasted about 2 months. Not sure what I was thinking.The sex. The sex is usually amazing with the truly nuts.

    If you look a girl in the eye at the bar, and you see that glint of crazy in her eye, you know she's a wildcat in the sack.

  11. Windypundit says:

    I don't think she'll sue Volokh, but I'll bet he gets a web site.

  12. Scott Jacobs says:

    I woudl like to point out that Mandy, my GF, has been at the receiving end of this sort of SEO-based assault for over 10 months.

    All because she wrote a post for Breitbart about how a guy who was convicted of perjury and setting off bombs had lied under oath and blown shit up.

  13. Scott Jacobs says:

    God. Damnit. That one comment should have looked like this:

    It only lasted about 2 months. Not sure what I was thinking.

    The sex. The sex is usually amazing with the truly nuts.

    If you look a girl in the eye at the bar, and you see that glint of crazy in her eye, you know she's a wildcat in the sack.

  14. Josh says:

    @Coyote: I'm with Windypundit. No lawsuit, but definitely web sites. I'd put at 3:1 in favor then. If things go on for more than another two weeks I'll up it to 6:1.

    @Scott: Yup. That's something that every man learns the hard way. (No pun intended, I swear!)

  15. Joe says:

    You'll love this one Ken she actually mentions your name. She now has a YouTube video out – link below – but of course comments and ratings are "disabled" on this video. Classic Cox – listen to what she says as she tries to "justify" her actions.

  16. Joe says:

    And here is one specifically mentioning Popehat. CSP Schofield – you're now infamous. She of course then tries to say Popehat is "threatening" her.

  17. Scott Jacobs says:

    Look lady – just because you several times too stupid to tell the difference between hyperbole and actual threats doesn't make us the bad guys here…

  18. David says:

    The more I read about Crystal Cox the more I wonder if we're dealing with someone who is legitimately in need of medical help. If she actually believes even a fraction of what she writes, the woman is seriously paranoid.

  19. Joe says:

    And, as I watched the vidoe where she is pointing out posts on Popehat stating they are threats and that is the fault of Ken and Marc Randazza she CONVENIENTLY doesn't mention those posts where both Marc and Ken said "hey guys don't do that take the high road be the good guys".

  20. Scott Jacobs says:

    @David – that's a given. If she isn't on powerful anti-psychotics, she should be. If she is, she needs her dosing adjusted.

  21. John Kindley says:

    Marc: I would think that if EV thought CC shouldn't appeal and had tried to convince her not to appeal he wouldn't be representing her on appeal pro bono. Seems he would have clarified what he was agreeing to do before entering his appearance in the case. I don't think EV is being dragged kicking and screaming up to the Ninth Circuit by CC's ego and insanity.

  22. Christian says:

    You're so vain, you probably think this lawsuit is about you…
    I really wonder what Cox would do if she was told she'd have to pay the attourneys' fees if she lost. Perhaps she can sell her publicity rights to Righthaven?

  23. EH says:

    I don't think it's necessarily paranoia, but yeah, mental illness does seem to be a factor.

  24. Kindley,

    I am certain that EV is not being "Dragged" to the 9th. But, here's what I think:

    EV knows, or should know, that the likely outcome of this appeal will not be good for anyone.

    EV tells Cox that, and says "you should not appeal."

    Cox says "I'm GoInG tO aPpeal anyHOW!"

    EV says "shit, if you're going to appeal in your own batshit crazy way, I need to go along to make sure that you smear as little shit on the walls as possible. The frigging mess you made at the trial level was bad enough. If I am there, at least I can limit the damage."

    That's the only scenario that makes sense to me.

  25. Christoph says:

    I have an ex girlfriend just like her. She is full of wrath and hate and spite, always the victim, everyone is out to get her, always crying and whining.

    It only lasted about 2 months. Not sure what I was thinking.

    Wet vay jay jay is my guess.

    In fact, I think that's the only Good and Respectable Answer.

    ;)

  26. Randall says:

    Methinks that Crystal will win 2012's "Censorious Asshat of the Year" contest by a landslide.

  27. Christoph says:

    I don't, by the way, think Crystal Cox is psychotic. I don't agree she should be prescribed neuroleptic or atypical neuroleptic (antipsychotic) drugs—certainly not several. These would be an inappropriate usage of these drugs for social control (they interfere with dopamine transmission to the prefrontal lobes), a form of chemical lobotomy.

    While not psychotic, she has an extreme emotional disturbance coupled with some neurological stuff going on, E.G. The Capitals. She's narcissistic to say the least, among other things.

    I hope Volokh or someone else manages to talk her into intensive therapy: for her benefit, not just other peoples. She seems to be selfish and mainly care about her benefit. Well OK. Relating better with people, however hard that is for her now when her heart gets sad or she feels angry at betrayal, can only help her in the long run.

    That said, I don't think the courts have to wait for her to sort herself out before they can act. I still believe she should be charged criminally, for harassment and extortion, and then a competency hearing should be held. Depending on the results, the trial should proceed.

  28. Jess says:

    @Randally – I think you'd win that bet because after all what could possibly be wrong with someone who calls the wife of an attorney a slut and then gets upset when someone else calls her batshit crazy. Good ole hey I can dish it out but I can't take it.

  29. "It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own." – Herbert Clark Hoover

  30. Christoph says:

    Regarding that comment by droopus on Slashdot, (1) could be a hoax, (2) did he not just admit to extorting Cox, and (3) too bad he and his friend didn't provide evidence of what he claims are Cox's clearly extortionate demands to the court or investigative authorities.

  31. Christoph says:

    I think the answer to 2 is "probably not extortion" by droopus and friend because they were threatening to submit an amicus brief, not charge her with a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    It would be good if Cox's previous victims of her harassment, extortion, and defamation would come forward now. This woman is still a threat to people and still defaming people, even our host, Ken.

  32. "Wet vay jay jay is my guess. "

    You know, just once I'd like to see a bunch of men discuss their pathetic, mentally disturbed ex-girlfriends, in a post about some other pathetic, probably mentally disturbed woman, without the disgusting, misogynistic, intrusive, sexual comments.

    Also anyone who has sex with a mentally disturbed woman because "everyone knows" crazy women are "great in the sack" are basically committing sexual abuse. FYI.

  33. Christoph says:

    You know, just once I'd like to see a bunch of men discuss their pathetic, mentally disturbed ex-girlfriends, in a post about some other pathetic, probably mentally disturbed woman, without the disgusting, misogynistic, intrusive, sexual comments.

    Well don't worry, Andrea. We like that about our non-crazy girlfriends as well.

    In fact, some of the "stable" women we know are so humorless, that that's the main thing we like about them.

    Not every woman can be a Maggie McNeill: bright, witty, reasonable, and with an absolutely phenomenal front-page post on her blog today.

  34. Christoph says:

    Oh my god, Andrea Harris. You actually have "twisted" and "spinster" in your blog's title.

    You. Nailed*. It.
     
     
    *no pun intended

  35. John Kindley says:

    Marc, you can call me John. Or I can call you Randazza. Or we can call each other what you just called me in your comment on my blog. I'm fine either ways.

    The scenario you posit sounds implausible to me. That's an awful lot of pro bono work for a case you don't believe in. Plus, I've read the briefs Volokh filed in the district court. I find them persuasive. The arguments therein will do a lot of good if they prevail. The briefs don't read like they're written by a lawyer who expects to lose and is just trying to limit the damage his crazy client would otherwise do if she represented herself on appeal.

  36. PLW says:

    Just to continue the derail, I found the sexual comments crude and off-putting too.

  37. John,

    You're talking about the motion for a new trial. I think that was a damn good maneuver, because the original order did have some edges on it that needed to be sanded down. Filing a motion for a new trial was a way to do that (a motion for clarification of the order could have too, but I don't think would have been superior). That meant the damage could be un-done, without the risk of greater damage. It was a brilliant move.

    I don't think that the scenario I put forth is all that implausible. I've worked on appeals in that very scenario myself — knowing it was a suicide mission, and knowing that my job was to just limit the damage.

    I sure didn't write my briefs from that perspective — I wrote them to win. While I did not win, I at least managed to limit the damage. If I were in EV's shoes, and Cox said "I'm appealing with or without you," I would stick around and try and make sure she didn't cause any further damage by trying to appeal on her own.

    EV thinks three dimensionally. It would not surprise me in the least if he considered his role to be to act in that capacity.

    And, of course, completely contrary to your mischaracterization of my "implication" of EV's motivation — such a mission requires a serious willingness to sacrifice one's ego for something bigger. Your name is on the loss forever, with very few people ever knowing why you did it.

  38. G Thompson says:

    Wow this place has degenerated into a lot of weirdness in a few hrs. You've all come down with Crystalitis I guess,
    "the inability to understand basic concepts of human behaviour whilst trying to interpret the English alphabet system"

    Don't worry it wears off after a while, though extended reading of her posts will result in psychotic behaviour and maybe good sex.. I don't want to know

    So whats happening? It's 3:30freekin am in Australia. bout to hit the sack and Marc's post of Random Characters above made me spit coffee. (thanks a heap Marc)

    Seems that Crystal has gotten a few websites dedicated to her, crystalcoxblows.com (HA!) and Stephanie DeYoung has risen from the blogging grave WTF! http://crystal-cox.tumblr.com

    Christoph: I believe droopus since that company he mentioned is all over her sites.

  39. Joe says:

    The following from Mark Bennetts blog RE Ms. Cox. I hope he doesn't mind my reposting this here since I'm giving him the credit. Thought this was great. As follows:

    I get to deal with a whole lot of crazy at work. The following rules are applicable to lots of flavors of crazy, but I've had a heavy dose of borderline personalities lately. So here are my ten rules for dealing with borderline personalities and other crazy people:

    1.If you don't have to deal with a crazy person, don't.
    2.You can't outsmart crazy. [Thanks to Lisa J] You also can't fix crazy. (You could outcrazy it, but that makes you crazy too.)
    3.When you get in a contest of wills with a crazy person, you've already lost.
    4.The crazy person doesn't have as much to lose as you.
    5.Your desired outcome is to get away from the crazy person.
    6.You have no idea what the crazy person's desired outcome is.
    7.The crazy person sees anything you have done as justification for what she's about to do.
    8.Anything nice you do for the crazy person, she will use as ammunition later.
    9.The crazy person sees any outcome as vindication.
    10.When you start caring what the crazy person thinks, you're joining her in her craziness.

  40. Christoph says:

    I sure didn't write my briefs from that perspective — I wrote them to win.

    Yeah, when I read John's comment that Marc is referring to, something stuck out to me: surely a lawyer of the calibre of Eugene Volokh is always going to write his briefs that way. Always.

  41. Christoph says:

    Joe, your comment about how to or better yet not to deal with crazy people was great. I can't add anything insightful to it: it was just f—ing* fantastic.

    *non-misogynist f—ing

  42. Joe says:

    Well Christoph I would love to be that witty, brilliant, or good looking but I'm not – this was courtesy of Mark Bennett.

  43. Me says:

    Yes, I have learned the hard way that you don't fight with people who have nothing to lose. Crystal Cox has nothing to lose – - no money, no good reputation, no actual job, no future prospects for jobs, no respect from anyone, no sanity – - which is why she just keeps going and going and going. All that being said, I'm glad she's doing so. It's fun to watch.

  44. Me says:

    ROFL – Crystal called herself an attorney.

  45. @ Me — I thought of that before posting on her. But, just because she has nothing to lose doesn't mean that she can't be stopped from taking something from other people.

    Sometimes you have to take on crazy.

  46. Sarahw says:

    There is some literature on the psychiatric morbidities associated with vexation litigation. Authors here advocate for revived attention to the querulous litigant, into which category Cox neatly fits according to traits laid out. http://www.netk.net.au/Psychology/VexatiousLitigants.pdf

    I'm more interested in her underlying pathology; yet a special category for the behavior could be useful for singling out the likes of Cox and removing them from a position where they can harm others.

  47. Christoph says:

    The Salty Droid has a new post up, and I think it's extremely important. Let me explain.

    Most of Droid's work is exposing Internet Marketing scammers who who use deceptive, cultish, and often illegal means to separate people who want to better their lives from their money. In fact, many of the top people involved in Internet Marketing have formed a price-fixing syndicate that they have helpfully called "The Syndicate".

    But law enforcement does nothing or next to nothing about it.

    And in Utah, for example, where they have ridiculously fraudulent boiler room operations as often the back-end if IM websites, they seem to be protected by the Utah Attorney General among others. Because of the money it brings into the state.

    Droid, a George Washington University School of Law trained Attorney licensed in Illinois, covers these and other similar stories.

    Droid's recent post: Crystal Cox’s 5th Amendment Rights makes this observation:

    The real The Crystal Cox Story is about local law enforcement’s repeated failure to stop someone who obviously needed to be stopped. But hundreds of ignorant stories by journalists :: bloggers :: and television halfwits … framed the story in undeserved 1st Amendment draperies.

    Salty Droid is focusing on that because that's what he runs into over and over again: authorities doing nothing about large-scale, destructive to the lives of thousands of people, fraud. It makes Crystal Cox by comparison look like peanuts: just one of many, albeit an odd duck and particularly vicious.

    I see Ken has an interest in going after scammers. Because of that, I hope he'll read SD's post.

    To all of Popehat's readers that hope Crystal Cox's business activities are properly investigated, I hope you'll also give some thought to all of the other Internet and telephone financial scams perpetrated by known, often high-profile individuals. Consider how many people they hurt and that the feds, presented with mountains of evidence, appear to look away.

    I'm not Droid or in cahoots with him. I'm just a fan, and I found his site after being financially and otherwise injured after foolishly (but hardly alone) chasing the IM dream; I thought I was being skeptical, but really I was just choosing to buy off of those cleverer and maybe a little less flashy.

  48. Sebastian says:

    Crystal is a fascinating journalist…you know, in the same way that Ted Bundy is a fascinating romantic, or Charles Manson is a fascinating religious figure. That level of shithouse-rat craziness does make for some fun reading, even if half of it makes me shake my head so hard I'm in danger of giving myself whiplash.

    Ken, keep up the good work! People like her need to be exposed for what they truly are.

  49. Ken says:

    Another Crystal Cox meme, appearing in many of her posts reacting to this publicity about her actions:

    It's fine for Crystal Cox to accuse other people of a wide variety of state and federal crimes based on gibberish. But if people suggest that a very specific email from her appears to be extortion — even though we have the email and its existence is admitted — then that's wrong and actionable because she hasn't been charged, there hasn't been a criminal complaint, she's had no due process, etc.

    One rule for her, another rule for everyone else: that's her mindset.

  50. John Kindley says:

    Re: The Salty Droid post: be sure to click on my comment wherein I called him out for describing Eugene Volokh as a "media whore" for representing Crystal Cox. You have to click on it because it's hidden due to all the negative ratings.

  51. Christoph says:

    Will do, John. I'll give it a positive rating even though I may disagree with you. I'll mostly do so because the voting down people's comment thing annoys me.

  52. Joe says:

    @Me – well she also calls herself a Reverend amongst other titles. That's the mark of a bat-shit crazy narcissist. They confer titles and all sorts of "special powers" to themselves.

    I would love to confer upon myself the title of awesome super rich and smart millionaire that looks like Tom Hardy. Unfortuntely I live in the real world unlike Ms. Cox.

  53. Christoph says:

    John, I replied to both you and SD more than once (and Wyrd) in that thread.

  54. Scott Jacobs says:

    Andrea, don't you have pearls that need clutching elsewhere?

    Besides, we have to sleep with the crazy ones. The well adjusted ones are rarely into the kinky shit…

  55. Christoph says:

    Just in case there was any doubt about it, Salty Droid says he knows the names of people who've actually paid up to Crystal Cox.

    "The well adjusted ones are rarely into the kinky shit…

    Au contraire.

  56. LeeAnna says:

    Crazy people ARE better in bed.

  57. Jess says:

    The thing that still burns me is where she calls Randazza's wife nasty names for no reason. His wife has nothing to do with this and the assumptions, and that's all they are, that she makes off of Marc's blog are vile. It takes someone with a truly polluted imagination to come up with that kind of stuff. By Cox's definition every woman in a committed monogamous but yet unmarried relationship is a slut. A comment which just offended a very wide population of women and to which I say in Ken’s words –Snort my Taint.

  58. markm says:

    I don't see much mystery in why Volokh might take the appeal pro bono: the "not a journalist" ruling is truly terrible, and needs to be overturned before other idiot judges use it as a precedent. Whether or not someone is a "journalist" should be entirely irrelevant. Would the New York Times' journalistic credentials be a defense against extortion if their advertising salespeople were calling the subjects of critical articles and suggesting that the purchase of a full-page ad might inspire a re-write of the article?

  59. Ken says:

    Ms. Cox is now tagging posts with the names of all the attorneys in my firm, as well as attorneys who have not been at my firm for years, saying that they are "condoning" this blog. This is typical of her—attacking critics by attempting to inflict embarrassment on their business associates. As readers know, my firm has nothing to do with my blog, and has no role in writing, editing, or approving it.

  60. Scott Jacobs says:

    Yeah Mark. Because a trial court is binding precedent… Oh, wait.

    Your comment shows you to be ignorant as to what the actual ruling says – not that bloggers are not journalist, but that this person specifically is not a journalist. And she isn't. She's a whackjob.

  61. Jess says:

    I'm less worried about the term journalist vs blogger. If a blogger can meet the requirements outlined in Judge Hernandez's decision then there might be a reasonable argument they have the priviledge to protect their sources. Ms. Cox hasn't been able to demonstrate she meets the requirement.

    And, after reviewing what I could find of content from the now named source, I cannot make any reasonable determination that what she alleges is true. The links to her source information do not work and only show a high level accounting of assets at Obsidian. Without detailed financials and transactional statements of every transaction executed after Padrick took over there is no way to say he did something improper as she alleges. If there is a case file somewhere that someone can point me to with all the financial data I'd be happy to take a look at it since I happen to know a bit about the subject. Simply saying someone has made off improperly with investors funds is something one might say without a clear understanding of finance, bankruptcy, and asset liquidation.

  62. Christoph says:

    As readers know, my firm has nothing to do with my blog, and has no role in writing, editing, or approving it.

    Yep. She's an evil, nasty person. A libeler, an extortionist, someone who would ruin the reputation of an innocent child. Any negative thing said by Crystal Cox, as far as I'm concerned, about someone just makes me want to get to know them that much more. It's like being hated by Bull Connor or Son of Sam or Pee Wee Herman.

    Sounds like a mark of good character to me.

  63. Narad says:

    I don't, by the way, think Crystal Cox is psychotic. I don't agree she should be prescribed neuroleptic or atypical neuroleptic (antipsychotic) drugs—certainly not several. These would be an inappropriate usage of these drugs for social control (they interfere with dopamine transmission to the prefrontal lobes), a form of chemical lobotomy.

    Are you a psychiatrist, or do you just play one in blog comments?

  64. anony-mouse says:

    The craziness is expanding

    via twitter @TumblingCox
    Lesbians, Match.com and Marc Randazza – What? Yes that was our exact exclamation, part of it anyway, the…

    http://tmblr.co/ZD-EcvJ6v3ZM

  65. Christoph says:

    Possibly the funniest words ever?

    "Do what ever makes you feel better and sleep best at night. Punish me for being Smarter than you are."

  66. Christoph says:

    That was a great link, anony-mouse.

  67. Jess says:

    Anony-mouse – that was fantastic. No doubt she will soon be going batshit crazy after the author of that site as well.

  68. anony-mouse says:

    And they tweet more

    @TumblingCox
    Breaking News: May defined as Must, dictionaries explode everywhere – The word may to us, is full of… http://tmblr.co/ZD-EcvJ77VE1

  69. Jess says:

    Well I spent some time doing some homework last night which was not easy given that Ms. DeYoung’s website is terrible. In fact it looks very similar to Ms. Cox’s websites. It’s almost impossible to follow any supposed “evidence” she provides. In fact, she provides nothing substantive at all. She calls herself a CPA. She may be one I’m not sure but one thing I am sure of is that her purported “evidence” has more holes in it than a piece of swiss cheese. I say this because I spent some time poring over it and I personally have an extensive background in finance (15+ years). I used to run risk management and security for a Fortune 100 bank. My responsibilities included audits and investigations into potential internal theft and fraud. Additionally, I had a friend of mine who is also a CPA and who speaks frequently for the AICPA look over DeYoung's site and documents. We’re both of the same conclusion – Cox had no real evidence to back up her smear campaign against Padrick. And it appears no other evidence other than Ms. DeYoung’s website appear to exist or were presented in court. I bring all this up because in my opinion it’s relevant to prove the case within a case so to speak. Every subsequent action she has taken was taken based on her conviction that Padrick had defrauded the investors – and she was wrong. Any of the defamatory sites she has up about Padrick and Obsidian should be removed – period. And, she needs to stop her continued harassment of those who have exposed her mistake.

    Given some of the recent posts on the Philly Law Blog and her admission of being a Lesbian, it appears she got involved in this whole thing due to an infatuation with Ms. DeYoung – apparently her one and only source for the smear campaign against Padrick. Ms. DeYoung has now distanced herself from Cox and ended her crusade against Summit, Obsidian, and Padrick. I assume because she was threatened with a lawsuit if she didn’t stop her slander. According to her own website – content posted below.

    According to the 11/29/11 Defamation Lawsuit Trial between Kevin Padrick and his Company, Obsidian Finance Group, LLC vs. Crystal Cox, BOTH KEVIN PADRICK AND OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP (in their work with the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy)…
    1. HAVE NOT AVOIDED TAXES
    2. HAVE NOT COMMITTED TAX FRAUD
    3. HAVE FILED ALL RELATED TAX DOCUMENTS IN THE SUMMIT LIQUIDATING TRUST AND RELATED ENTITIES ACCORDING TO THE IRS TAX CODE

  70. Joe says:

    Here's another funny one – almost spewed my morning coffee. Be warned it will take the rest of the day to get the visual out of your mind. http://crystalcoxblows.com/

  71. Joe says:

    The Philly Law Blog does a great job of chronicling the entire Cox story timeline, supporting emails and links, etc. Great job. Link here http://phillylawblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/the-evolution-of-crystal-cox-anatomy-of-a-scammer/

  72. Purusing Cox's site (so you don't have to!), today's posts up the creep factor and renews the attacks on Marc's wife and daughter again:

    Marc Randazza and Family. I Give you this Tidbit of Advice for your Protection.
    Being a Lawyer that Defends Domainers to Own sites such as GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com and in Publicly Speaking against woman's rights and for Rush Limbaugh, you are calling a lot of attention onto your young family. PLEASE tell Jennifer to set her facebook page, ALL her family albums to private, there are so many adorable photos and to protect your family, Wake UP to the Internet and how to keep your life as private as you can, to protect your Children.

    by the way Congrats on your Weight Loss, nice to see you smile so much.

    Now Get to setting those photos Private Right now .. Dude, You were on CNN, this information should not be PUBLIC… it is..

    NOTE:   How did I come across this Today? Well I received a "Jackass Letter" by regular USPS Mail and in researching it online I found the Randazza Society on Facebook and there it was. NOT Stalking, Don't Care about Marc Randazza's private life what so ever. I do care about this letter and it's author whom most likely is Marc Randazza Himself. I am turning it over to the FBI.

    So, according to Cox, speaking out about current events makes your three year old daughter and your wife fair game for insulting you, and it's okay so long as you disclaim any interest in their "private" life (while still finding time to dig through Facebook photos with enough attention to notice that someone lost weight.) But calling someone out on their extortion-esque emails and baseless, public defamation is… harassment and a hate crime worthy of the FBI's attention.

    Classy.

  73. Joe says:

    What's a Jackass letter? A letter sent to – - – Jackasses?

    She is downright creepy.

  74. joe says:

    Check out these great posts from others on our dearest nutjob Chyrstal Cox. I almost spewed my coffee this morning. I now have a new favorite term FUNKSHUNEL ILLITERIT Anyone who has a site should link to these.

    http://crystal-cox.tumblr.com/post/20579220233/crystal-cox-is-victimising-us-with-her-excluding-ways

    http://phillylawblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/crystal-cox-is-philly-law-blog-part-of-a-big-awesome-media-conspiracy-along-with-above-the-law-i-sure-hope-so/

    Also 4 new domains have been registered with Crystal Cox in the name – by someone other than Crystal Cox I presume

    http://www.crystalcox-the-lier.com
    http://www.crystalcox-the-bitch.com
    http://www.crystalcox-extortionist.com
    http://www.crystalcox-batshit-crazy-blogger.com

    No content – yet anyway.

  75. Christoph says:

    Ms. DeYoung’s website is terrible. In fact it looks very similar to Ms. Cox’s websites. It’s almost impossible to follow any supposed “evidence” she provides. In fact, she provides nothing substantive at all.

    Well, yes. Also, she's defending her dad, who was behind a pyramid scheme. So on that at least, of course her evidence is going to suck.

  76. Christoph says:

    Defends Domainers to Own sites such as GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com

    Did Marc Randazza actually defend that domain owner?

    I found that URL offensive when I saw it on Cox's site. Now my being offended by it is trivial: it describes something offensive, after all. But if there's no evidence for it, then shouldn't Beck be able to do something about it? Assuming it's false, which seems highly likely.

    As for Randazza, if he really defended that domain owner, well … everyone has a right to a defense, so there's that. I hope for Randazza that either there's some plausible grounds for believing that URL's claim is true or that at least that wasn't part of his pro bono work.

    I agree with Salty Droid that defending vicious sociopaths is not the best use of extremely scarce pro bono resources.

  77. Jess says:

    Well I understand Mr. Volokh's approach given the implications to protection of free speech but I disagree with one specific area as outlined below. Excerpts from the reply to denial on Cox’s case below.

    "Moreover, those First Amendment arguments are substantively sound. There should be a new trial in which the jury is instructed using the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan standards, under which Defendant would be held liable only if the jury finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant knew her statements were false or acted with reckless disregard of whether or not they were false."

    I agree with Mr. Volokh's opinion above and while just about anyone with an intellect higher than a peanut will agree Ms. Cox’s statements were false, the challenge is proving Ms. Cox knew they were false. This of course would require proof that she is anything but a idiot – difficult at best given the posts on her blog. The argument being that any intelligent reasonable person would conclude, that Ms. Cox’s posts are the ramblings of a misinformed idiot. The only problem is that there is no guarantee someone else is either reasonable or intelligent enough to discern this fact. Meaning the only individuals who won't be influenced by such slander are those intelligent enough to see it for what it is – too bad so many don't.

    "Even if this Court disagrees as to the application of the New York Times rule, there should at least be a new trial in which the jury is instructed using the Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. standards, under which proven compensatory damages would be awarded only if the jury finds that Defendant spoke negligently, and presumed damages would be awarded only if the jury finds Defendant spoke with knowledge of or reckless disregard of falsehood. Plaintiffs are mistaken in arguing that the speech in this case is on a matter of purely private concern, and that Gertz only protects the institutional press."

    Again I agree with Volokh's opinion but we get back to the issue of proving Ms. Cox spoke with knowledge of reckless disregard of falsehood. The PROBLEM is that Ms. Cox being bat-shit crazy, actually believes what she has posted. Evidence to the contrary means nothing to her. She is not interested in fact, only in her own self absorbed opinions.

    "And even if Defendant is only entitled to the First Amendment protections provided by Gertz, she cannot be held liable for presumed damages without a showing of “actual malice”—which might likewise have to be shown by clear and convincing evidence, see, e.g., Brown v. Kelly Broad. Co., 771 P.2d 406, 429 (Cal. 1989)—and she cannot be held liable for proven compensatory damages without a showing of negligence."

    Here is where I'm going to not be so much in agreement with Volokh, because it brings up another challenge – what is the legal remedy if you are dealing with someone who is just plain stupid and who insists they are right even when evidence to the contrary is presented. One could almost argue that someone who is narcissistic self centered and stupid would therefore be exempt from restitution of any damages they create. How nice for Ms. Cox.

    I have a lot of respect for Mr. Volokh and what he is trying to accomplish. It's unfortunte that Ms. Cox is the ugly poster child for this. It would seem the only remedy is as Ken and others have advocated – more speech. The more alternative view blog posts, YouTube videos, and websites pointing out the blatant falsehoods this woman has promoted the less damage she can do to others.

  78. Captain Obvious says:

    @Jess – well what to expect. To quote Thomas Paine, “To argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

    Just recently happened across this blog via the whole Chrystal Cox debacle. I’ve been a fan of the Legal Satyricon for a while and have to say I’m really enjoying the posts here as well.

  79. anony-mouse says:

    Jess,

    You are making the assumption that she is of low intelligence and mental incapax, and therefore incapable of understanding what she has done.

    Though we and others have postulated that she is more than likely suffering from a personality disorder (and a slight writing/learning disorder) this does not reflect on her intelligence which is more than likely on the high side of the average tinfoil nutter (or higher).

    From her websites, which people are finding more and more of, and doing a great job of picking apart, she does know her stuff and would have to to file all the documents and be Pro Se up to this point.

    We agree you need to prove intent, though it seems that prior acts over the last decade (yes before 2008) are showing a pattern of behavior that is very damning and that is what people need to focus on now in our opinion, forget about what Mr Volokh is doing, its happening deal with it afterwards lets stop the rest and stop any future victims happening

    Everyone needs to understand this as well, do not fall into the trap of underestimating Ms Cox. Treat her as an intelligent, but sadly deluded individual instead.

    On a personal note, thanks and we left you a reply. we felt we MUST ;)

    For everyone else here, DIG DEEP

  80. Jess says:

    Thanks anony-mouse – I'm in violent agreement. And thanks for the pointer to the site.

  81. anony-mouse says:

    For all those too busy to Dig Deep and instead are munching on "Lucifers balls of goodness" it seems that Marc Randazza has spoken into a microphone at 'On The Media'.

    Our take (it's short since we are suffering from sugar based testicle overdose) is of course here

    Dig deep all *burp*

  82. Christoph says:

    "Christoph, to get the significance of the domain name, I recommend seeing Randazza's brief. The domain name is part of a meme that emerged from Beck telling a Muslim Congressman to "prove to him" that he's not working for the enemy."

    Ah. So it's a "prove you didn't rape someone in 1990" sort of free speech exercise to someone who challenged someone else to prove a negative, with the implication he is a traitor, but without any evidence of same.

    I took a look at the brief. Quite humorous, really. I get it now.

  83. Christoph says:

    *decision, not brief — haven't read the brief, but the decision expressed the idea

  84. Joe says:

    OMG – someone has a WICKED sense of humor. Check out this latest YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yeeB5_bbD4

  85. Joe says:

    Make sure if you watch the YouTube video that you do it in full screen by hitting the four corner square at the bottom right of the vidoe screen. Some of the wording is a bit small and you won't get it all if you don't see it in full screen.

  86. Jess says:

    Joe – he's a card for sure – check out his profile. https://plus.google.com/101090796430326520209#101090796430326520209/about

  87. Jess says:

    Cox's website is now full of all sorts of deranged vitriol against Ken. Also she mentions C.S.P. Schofield repeatedly – sounds like she wants to go after you too bro. I'm so sorry.

    Statements of she is going to sue everybody for threatening her because everyone is "ganging up" on her. I guess it's only OK if she does it. Next thing you know she'll be going after Captain Obvious for the Crazy Crystal Cox video.

    Ken, drop us a comment if she follows through on the bar complaint she mentions or any filing of a lawsuit. I would love to think there isn’t a lawyer out there unprincipled enough to take it , but – - – - – who knows maybe – - – - – Rakofsky —- I shudder to think of the two of them together.

  88. Scott Jacobs says:

    WTF? CSP gets targeted, but I don't?

    I've flat-out called her insane! I've said she needs heavy doses of anti-psychotic meds!

    WTF do I have to do to get some attention here?

  89. Jess says:

    Awww Scott – our love isn't enough? I'm hurt – really I am. Besides she doesn't swing that way if you know what I mean ;-)

  90. Scott Jacobs says:

    She doesn't?

    Wow. I'm shocked. I mean, she doesn't look like a twitchy Rachel Maddow at ALL. How surprising that she would be entirely uninterested in my gender…

  91. Jess says:

    If you really want her attention visit her website while on your employers servers and use your real name. She loves to go after people like this. She tracks the IP addresses of every visitor to her sites. But, be careful what you wish for. From what I can determine Sean Boushie has been dealing with her for 4 years now. She’s the gift that keeps on giving (or is that disease?). It’s like getting a piece of gum stuck in your hair you’ll spend way too much time trying to get rid of it and you’ll just lose more hair in the process.

  92. Captain Obvious says:

    Captain Obvious would never suggest you engage in internet intercourse with Ms. Cox – obviously. But if the urge proves irresistible, the Captain suggests using adequate protection. Namely in the form of either a personal home computer with a router and firewall or even better by hiding your IP via a proxy server. Instructions on how to do this can be found here http://www.ehow.com/how_7398299_hide-up-visiting-someone_s-blog.html This is why Captain Obvious wears a mask – obviously.

  93. PNT says:

    I think the upcoming PARODY on marcrandazza.com will clear quite a few things up :)

  94. Scott Jacobs says:

    Huh… A blog filled with SEO-like links, is extremely complimentary of the crazy bitch, doesn't allow comments (like any of the crazy-lady's efforts), and is on a site we know to have been registered by above-mentioned nuttier-than-squirrel-shit woman?

    Hi Crystal. You done harassing little girls yet? Or is that just how you gets dates?

  95. Labeling something "parody" does not a parody make. I can label Marc a Professional Ham Sandwich, but that doesn't make him (legally) edible.

  96. Captain Obvious says:

    PNT aka C. Cox – you are sooo OBVIOUS.

  1. April 4, 2012

    [...] Cox: free speech for me, but not for thee. Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

  2. April 11, 2012

    [...] at Popehat knows how to pick his enemies [first, second, third posts, Philly Law [...]