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 

Edgar J. Steele: the North Idaho Edgar J. Steele Story. Congressional Testimony: Cyndi Steele to Bill Windsor of Lawless America regarding Edgar Steele Idaho Attorney Framed by Idaho Corruption.

Cyndi Steele Congressional Testimony Regarding the North Idaho Edgar Steele Story.



".. web site directly addresses the arrest of Edgar J. Steele and his evolving legal battle regarding a “murder-for-hire plot” he is alleged to have undertaken.  Those involved with the content of this site have a keen interest in facts, truth, information gathering and – ultimately – the support and complete exoneration of Mr. Steele leading to a swift release from incarceration.

In the spirit of an America conceived as a Constitutional Republic, endowing free speech and fair, impartial justice upon its citizens, we must all rise from the sidelines to stand with, and for a fellow citizen.  Many believe the America of 2010 – the “great experiment in government” – has run its course and now has devolved into a megalomanical oligarchy, fearful of and abusive to citizens like Mr. Steele. "

Support of North Idaho's Edgar J. Steele

http://www.free-edgar-steele.com/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Edgar-Steele/108956835840391

"The starting point of concern occurred on June 11, 2010 when Mr. Steele was arrested for suspicion of intent to arrange for the murder of his wife and mother-in-law.  Much of the current knowledge on this case has been gleaned from the print and broadcast media of north Idaho and eastern Washington state.  Aggressive negative bias against Mr. Steele is found in nearly every news report thus far issued. The reader is advised to take general media output with more than a grain of salt."

Source of Edgar J. Steele Information
http://www.free-edgar-steele.com/background/

".. a one-stop location for Edgar’s writings. If installment have been updated by him, they will be posted here. "

http://www.free-edgar-steele.com/complaint/

Edgar J. Steele definitive non-fiction work “Defensive Racism” is now available!  Please visit www.defensiveracism.com "

http://www.free-edgar-steele.com/book/

Free Edgar J. Steele Videos for More Information
http://www.free-edgar-steele.com/ussc/



Idaho Anti-Corruption - Free Edgar Steele



Idaho Free Speech.  Make a Stand Against Corruption in Idaho



Edgar Steele Interview




Free Edgar Steele, Click Here for More Information

Posted Here by
Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com

Gail Mackie of Spokanimal: Correspondence with Lawless America, Gail Mackie of Spokanimal had the Following to say regarding the Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine story.

Gail Mackie of Spokanimal had this to Say to Lawless America regarding the
Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine Story.

"From: gmackie@spokanimal.org
Subject: RE: Animal confiscation
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 06:59:58 -0700

The true parts of the video:

1.       In February we confiscated 50 animals from Erskine’s home
2.       Board is being charged at $20/day for all 4 dogs

What the video did not say:
1.        Cruelty charges have been filed and the animals are being held at Erskine’s request.

2.       Board is allowed at $10/day per animal  ($40)  we are charging $20/day

3.       Erskine has visitation rights whenever she comes in during business hours

4.       We are in the middle of a court case at this time

5.       50 animals were confiscated from her 200 square foot home

6.       Police and media were with us on sited during the confiscation, their reports indicated the stench from the street coming from the house.

7.       Erskine has been investigated or charged before with cruelty and for taking funds from elderly men who were living in her home

8.       Many feral cats were confined to cages in her basement.  Earthen steps going into the basement where there was a single light bulb illuminating the area.  The cages of these cats was about 2-4” deep in feces and urine.  The cats had scald burns on their bellies and paws from laying in urine.

Thanks for giving us the benefit of response.  The few calls we have had rant and rave and then hang up.

Please google Erskine under her name or any of her alias names:

Marsha Erskine
Lavena Erskine
Lavena Dodds
Marsha Dodds"


Let's break this response down a bit, as I find it quite petty in places and a bit "reactive". Meaning I believe that Gail Mackie of Spokanimal is quite defensive and leaving out quite a lot.

So Gail Mackie of Spokanimal admits that Gail Mackie of Spokanimal confiscated 50 animals from the home of Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine.  Yet Gail Mackie of Spokanimal does not seem to mention that Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine had come to Gail Mackie of Spokanimal previously for help with these same animals.

Gail Mackie of Spokanimal also admits to charging $20 a day to board the dogs of  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine. This is money that those donating to Gail Mackie of Spokanimal are paying out, at least at first until folks like Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine can pay Gail Mackie of Spokanimal for this boarding of their personal pets in which they could be boarding without Gail Mackie of Spokanimal.

Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine tried to help these animals,  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine  become overloaded and went to Gail Mackie of Spokanimal to get help, to drop off these strays.   Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine was turned away by Gail Mackie of Spokanimal and then soon after, Gail Mackie of Spokanimal sent police and local media to the home of  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine in order to make a big display of what do gooders Gail Mackie of Spokanimal is. When in truth, Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine had been turned away by Gail Mackie of Spokanimal.

Gail Mackie of Spokanimal claims that the video of the Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine story does not talk about cruelty charges filed. Why in the world would there be cruelty charges filed when Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine came to Gail Mackie of Spokanimal in order to do the right thing by these Spokane stray, feral animals?

Gail Mackie of Spokanimal talks of visitation rights for Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine . This makes no sense, as  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine should not have had her main pets taken. She needed the massive strays taken, as  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine tried to get Gail Mackie of Spokanimal to do previously.  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine certainly did not need her own personal pets taken. This was cruel punishment to  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine, as she loves her pets very much. They are her family.

Gail Mackie of Spokanimal talks of a court case that "we" are in the middle of.  I will post documents on this "court case" soon.  Gail Mackie of Spokanimal seems to give no details of this case nor admit that Gail Mackie of Spokanimal had refused to do right by these animals in the first place.

In number 6 Gail Mackie of Spokanimal says, "Police and media were with us on sited during the confiscation, their reports indicated the stench from the street coming from the house."

What a dramatic bunch of PR crap that is. Gail Mackie of Spokanimal seems to have called the cops, and why?  Gail Mackie of Spokanimal called the "Media" and ALL to give Kudos to Gail Mackie of Spokanimal which leads to more donations for Gail Mackie of Spokanimal .

Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine come to Gail Mackie of Spokanimal with the issue of these animals in the first place. So does Gail Mackie of Spokanimal have more "Clout" with the Spokane Police then  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine ?  Well of course Gail Mackie of Spokanimal does. Gail Mackie of Spokanimal is a big deal in Spokane as she is an alleged do gooder helping the stray and distressed animals of Spokane.

Gail Mackie of Spokanimal says media was were with "Us".  Hmmm why is that Gail Mackie of Spokanimal ? My guess is to get more sympathy, pats on the back and donations to Gail Mackie of Spokanimal.

The "Media" certainly did not present Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine's side of the issue. This alleged "Real Media"  just reported that the "stench" was coming from the house. Ummm gee, yep, 50 animals in which Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine tried to get Gail Mackie of Spokanimal to help her with in the first place.

This, so called "Media" simply defamed Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine and made her look like a Crazy Cat Lady, even called her the Cat Lady in their alleged "reputable" "Media", and Why?  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine is the collateral damage in the sensationalism of newspapers reporting on what they call animal cruelty, as this gets lots of readers online and offline and this sells ongoing ads as so many come back year after year to read stories such as the Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine story and in this they feel for the seeming plight of Gail Mackie of Spokanimal and they send more money to Gail Mackie of Spokanimal.

These readers also tend to subscribe to those media sources who seem to be on the side of the animals, not knowing that the truth is simply NOT being reported.

To this traditional "Media", such as the Spokesman Review, the truth seems to even be irrelevant and there is no accountability to "Media" such as the Spokesman Review who ruin lives such as Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine in their quest to make more MONEY.

In number 7 Gail Mackie of Spokanimal says, "Erskine has been investigated or charged before with cruelty and for taking funds from elderly men who were living in her home".

First of all what in the world does taking funds from an elderly men have to do with this situation? Is Gail Mackie of Spokanimal simply trying to defame Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine ?  Is Gail Mackie of Spokanimal attempting to make Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine   look like a criminal and therefore diminish what Gail Mackie of Spokanimal has done here?

Gail Mackie of Spokanimal simply states that Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine took funds from elderly men. What in the world does that mean?

Did  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine have elderly men as renters ?  Did Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine sell stuff to these mysterious elderly men?  Did Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine take care of these elderly men or do errands of some kind? And really is it any of our business?  Is it illegal?  If so file a criminal complaint and STOP yammering and blathering lies to discredit Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine on a totally unrelated case.  Seriously Gail Mackie of Spokanimal Play Fair.

Its ok Gail Mackie of Spokanimal, I don't play fair either. I play FACTS.  Not favoritism to big media, elite and money. And not to the way people are dressed or how they choose to live their life.

So continuing, in number 8 Gail Mackie of Spokanimal speaks of feral cats in the basement.  Yes Gail Mackie of Spokanimal, many "feral" cats were in the basement of Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine .

That is because Gail Mackie of Spokanimal refused to take these "feral cats".  See folks, the fact that Gail Mackie of Spokanimal calls the cats "feral" implies that Gail Mackie of Spokanimal knows that the cats were not pets of Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine. And therefore there is no cruelty charges.

Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine simply took in "feral", stray cats that had gone wild, descended from domestic cats in the Spokane area. Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine attempted to help these animals and essentially all of Spokane by getting these animals off the streets and feeding and caring for them to the best of her ability.

Gail Mackie of Spokanimal ends her emailed response to Lawless America by defaming Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine  a bit more in encouraging all of us to google the alleged aliases of  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine.

Gail Mackie of Spokanimal makes it sound almost criminal to have these alleged 4 different names, she calls Aliases.  See we know her as Marcia Erskine, due to the special report by Lawless America.  Her name is Lavena Marsha Erskine. She obviously goes by Marcia short for Marsha.

She looks to me to be in her 60's, so one can guess she would have at least a maiden name and a married name, if not several in this day and age. So 2 different last names is not so mysterious, not so "Alias" and certainly not something to judge Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine badly on, as seems to be the intention of Gail Mackie of Spokanimal.

For me personally, I stand with the Woman doing her best to make the world a better place for us all.   I choose the side of the woman who has no voice, because Gail Mackie, Spokanimal, the Spokesman Review and the alleged "All Media" of Spokane Washington simply silenced the voice of Marsha Erskine in attempt to twist this story into animal cruelty, when in fact it was and continues to truly be animal rescue by Marsha Erskine.

Gail Mackie, in my opinion, is being very petty with this response and is simply Yammering and Blathering and provided no documented proof.

Spokanimal, Gail Mackie seemed to have turned Marsha Erskine away plain and simple.    Marsha Erskine was trying to do right by these animals and Spokanimal, Gail Mackie did not let her. Then Spokanimal, Gail Mackie turns around and involves police and the alleged "All Media" of Spokane Washington in an attack on the constitutional rights of Marsha Erskine.

Do I think someone should have 50 animals?  No Way. However, I do support Marsha Erskine in trying to do right by this animals and I do know that Spokane Washington needs people like Marcia Erskine to help Spokanimal, Gail Mackie in dealing with strays.

Spokanimal, Gail Mackie punishing this one woman for trying to do right by these animals,  essentially shuts down others who are trying to help strays in Spokane Washington.

Most do not have the time, patience nor stomach to deal with this situation. If folks like  Marsha Erskine, Marcia Erskine do, then we need to support them and demand that non-profits such asSpokanimal, Gail Mackie are non-discriminating in their dealing with the strays of Spokane Washington and those who attempt to help these animals.

Non-profit humane organization such as Spokanimal have certain obligations and accountability to the public. As you are paying the tax that they are not. Gail Mackie has, I believe, worked with Spokanimal since 1983, maybe its time for Gail Mackie to retire.  Meanwhile, it is time for me to dig into over 30 years of records of Spokanimal and see what we can turn up in some investigative blogging. Why? In the name of justice and equality for all.

So You choose the dog you want in this fight based on your own beliefs, your information and how you interpret the facts, findings and the reporting from the "Alleged" "All Media" that showed up on the scene and WOW witnessed alarming smells.

For me, I Choose Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine, one woman who is making a difference, a stand in effort to attempt to help in her way, to deal with a huge issue that many of us simply cannot face nor deal with.

Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine is not a rich woman, not a tax free non profit getting donations from the public for her efforts to help these animals. Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine is simply one of many who help these animals with their own time and money the best they can. And when Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine could not do it, she sought the help of Gail Mackie of Spokanimal and was turned away.  Only to then be humiliated, persecuted and financially punished soon after for taking care of these animals, rejected by Gail Mackie of Spokanimal, on her own the best she could.

Gail Mackie of Spokanimal makes herself look like a superhero calling news and media sources to twist a story to get more money, donations sent to Gail Mackie of Spokanimal and to   keep Gail Mackie of Spokanimal in a job.

Meanwhil Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine and folks like her, are out there every day buying cat food, dog food, helping strays and even spay and neutering animals they have nothing to do with and all this to help best they can. These folks are all around Spokane networking with neighbors to help and they are punished for their efforts by folk like Gail Mackie of Spokanimal.

One of the articles I read talked about 30 years of complaints regarding Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine . Really?  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine has been taking in strays for 30 years and folks like Gail Mackie of Spokanimal have not helped her, or taken animals, give money to help, anything? They simply attack her, fine her and publish defaming articles regarding her efforts, instead of doing something about the problem of massive strays that she was trying to help.

Stand in Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine's shoes, come from her heart and then rethink your stance on the Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine story.

I intend to dig very deep into the records, in money, out money, fines, and all aspects of Gail Mackie in regards to Spokanimal from the very begining. I will expose every devilish dollar should it exist. This "non-profit" is all of our business. And I have made my choice, I stand with  Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine  and folks like her, I have known many over my life and though I could never do what they do. I am certainly glad that they can do it and that they continue to exist out there.

Many know of the problems with stray animal in Spokane, and they do not have the time nor energy to do anything about it, so they help by donating to Spokanimal, Gail Mackie.  These folks believe in Spokanimal, Gail Mackie and therefore Spokanimal, Gail Mackie must do the right thing and help people like Marcia Erskine that are taking on so much, in order to do right by these animals.

I will EXPOSE Spokanimal and Gail Mackie on every dirty deed I can Find.  eMail your  Spokanimal and Gail Mackie tips to me Crystal L. Cox, investigative blogger at Crystal@CrystalCox.com 

Are you a past employee of Spokanimal and Gail Mackie and have a tip regarding Spokanimal and Gail Mackie ? Email Me.

Do you have information on donations mis-used or any other indescrestions or possible violations of law, code, or non-profit status of Spokanimal and Gail Mackie ? eMail Me.

On a side note, I would say, in my Opinion, that Marcia Erskine, Marsha Erskine could possible sue the Spokesman Review and Gail Mackie Spokanimal for defamation, as in my case they claim I did not get both sides so therefore I am not the real "Media".   I don't see where Marsha Erskine, Marcia Erskine's story in these alleged "Real" news sources, even attempted to give her side. Seems to me that they just painted her in false light, attacked her as some animal cruelty culprit and called it a day. Oh, and then placed ads all around the article to make more money for the Spokanesman Review and get more donations to Spokanimal, Gail Mackie.

Folks like Marsha Erskine, Marcia Erskine may be just a story to sell papers for the Spokesman Review, and a way to get more donations for Gail Mackie and Spokanimal, but to me, folks like Marsha Erskine, Marcia Erskine are the ones out there making the world a better place for all of us, so we don't have to deal with the overload of strays, and face the cries of animals without a home.  We simply donate to a local shelter and call it good. Thing is when those shelters turn away people like Marsha Erskine, Marcia Erskine who is obviously overloaded, this is simply wrong and I for one say they should have their non-profit status revoked as they take in money in fines and boarding when this woman had previously come to Gail Mackie, Spokanimal for help and was cruelly turned away.

Call me Bat Shit Crazy as many of you already do, but I stand firmly with the Crazy ol' Cat Lady, making the world a better place for all of us who do not have time, nor the stomach to do so.

More Information at www.GailMackie.com  (owned by Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, Giving Voice to Victims as the "Real Media" )

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger, Industry Whistleblower
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Oh and P.S. - As Gail Mackie of Spokanimal suggest you Google Marsha Erskine to get the "real" story according to Gail Mackie of Spokanimal.  Well I, Crystal Cox Blogger, suggest that you Google Gail Mackie of Spokanimal and see what you can find.

... much more coming Soon.. Also Check Out Lawless America at the Following Links

http://www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

http://lawlessamerica.com/

Windels, Marx, Lane, Mittendorf Law Firm - David Swerdlow, Craig Gottilla. David Swerdlow and Craig Gottilla of Windels, Marx, Lane, Mittendorf

David Swerdlow and Craig Gottilla of Windels, Marx, Lane, Mittendorf.

Please Email your tips or information regarding attorneys David Swerdlow and Craig Gottilla of Windels, Marx, Lane, Mittendorf.

Email your David Swerdlow and Craig Gottilla of Windels, Marx, Lane, Mittendorf tips to SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com - Whistleblower Media, Crystal L. Cox Investigative Blogger.

Below is a Letter from Eleanor Capogrosso Esq.  regarding David Swerdlow and Craig Gottilla of Windels, Marx, Lane, Mittendorf.


"Hello,

I came across attorneys in  New Jersey, I was wondering  if anyone had knowledge about. The firm's name is Windels, Marx, Lane, Mittendorf.

The attorneys I dealt with were David Swerdlow and Craig Gottilla. I had a case in which they represented the defendant, State Farm Insurance Company in Federal Court in Newark, New Jersey. The case dealt with a non-payment claim of a flood in Jersey City HUD apartment complex.

An issue in the case was the failure of obtaining an building inspection by HUD. The building complex primarily had tenants from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was my strong belief that the C.I.A had placed surveillance into these buildings.

That was the reason why a building inspector could be found. Windels, Marx, Lane, Mittendorf was Bill Casey's, former director of the C.I.A, law firm.

They commuted hours to the court in Newark from Princeton, New Jersey on a very small insurance claim. Their attorney's fees far outweighed the cost of the claim. So I knew this interference on the case had to do with preventing a buiding inspection and the surveillance that would be uncovered.

 During the course of the litigation, these attorneys demonstrated such bad faith. When I tried to obtain the transcript of remarks they made at a settlement conference in front of Hon. Mark Falk, the language was missing from the transcript.

I brought this to the attention of the Chief Judge, Hon. Brown; the day I sent the fax to him notifying him of this, my motion in front Hon. Falk was denied. Hon. Brown sent me a letter indicating that the judge was allowed to alter a transcript when there is a pending motion and oral decision.

When I wrote back to the chief judge explaining that there was no pending motion but only a settlement conference, the Hon. Falk was removed from my case. I made telephone calls to report this to the office of Inspector General of the C.I.A., I tried to explain to them that the brakes in my car were tampered with, my tires were slashed,, I found a listening device in my car and I had received death threats.

They refused to listen to me, so I sent them an email. In response the C.I.A called the local police near my mother's home, which is 25 miles away in another county, telling her that the C.I.A called them because they received an email saying that she was going to kill someone, vandalize a car and kill herself. They also said the email was sent by my elderly mother, under her social security number.

Rather, it was sent by me in a different county 25 miles away. However, I certainly did not write those things in the email. The C.I.A could have traced the IP address clearly to me located in Manhattan, especially since they knew I called three times explaining the matter to them.

 There has been phone tapping wherein my and my family's medical treatment have been interfered with. A family member has been turned away from an emergency room in the process of a stroke. He was was told he did not need medical care. He was also turned away from same emergency room when he had a broken arm.

They are listening in on telephone conversations and know the doctor and hospital we am going to  and interfering with the treatment.

 If anyone knows any information concerning these lawyers or law firm I would appreciate it if you would forward it to me.

Eleanor Capogrosso Esq."


Email your David Swerdlow and Craig Gottilla of Windels, Marx, Lane, Mittendorf tips to SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com - Whistleblower Media, Crystal L. Cox Investigative Blogger.

Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, First Amendment Attorney, is Working Directly AGAINST Free Speech in Siding with the Plaintiff in Obsidian Vs. Blogger Crystal Cox. Marc Randazza, The Legal Satyricon, is Working to Create "Bad Law" for ALL Bloggers and Citizen Journalist in Regard to Free Speech and First Amendment Issues.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.