Cox v. The Internet: Frivolous Crystal Cox Cases Dismissed Again and Again and Again

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Crystal Cox’s incomprehensible lawsuits filed in multiple federal district courts against largely the same large group of defendants.  The cases dismissed were in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (read that article for the back story on this lunacy) and District of Arizona.

Last week Crystal L. Cox was thrown out of court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The order stated that Cox could amend her complaint within 30 days, but:

…plaintiff shall not attempt to litigate claims that she has raised in other cases that she filed in Federal Court. She shall limit her claims to those in which this Court has venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and she shall state as clearly and briefly as possible: (1) the basis for Federal Court jurisdiction, and (2) how each of the defendants, named in the caption of her complaint, is involved in her claims.

Furthermore, her amended complaint shall not contain any legal arguments, definitions or excerpts from correspondence….

There is virtually no chance that Cox can file an amended complaint that can pass muster. She has already tried that and failed miserably in Arizona, and a dismissal (probably with prejudice) is likely forthcoming.

This week, Crystal Cox has been thrown out of court in the Northern District of Illinois, and her case has been deemed “legally frivolous.” The judge had this to say about Cox’s nonsense:

Cox’s complaint, not including the exhibits, is 122 pages long and names 35 defendants, one of whom is a federal district court judge. Ms. Cox’s sprawling complaint includes allegations that various groups of defendants defamed her, violated her constitutional rights, infringed her copyrights, engaged in a conspiracy to silence her, engaged in negligent conduct, violated federal laws against witness tampering, , tortuously interfered with her business prospects, and violated the antitrust laws.

Inclusion of these disparate claims against disparate defendants in a single lawsuit renders the suit legally frivolous. Cf. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007). Among other problems, there is no plausible basis for suing most (and perhaps all) of the defamation defendants in Illinois, and the allegations that all of the defendants – who include, for example, the World Intellectual Property Organization, Forbes, the New York Times, a federal judge, an Oregon sheriff, and several lawyers and law firms – conspired with each other are fantastical and implausible.

In case you’re keeping track, Crystal Cox was also thrown out of federal court in the Southern District of New York, with the judge sending Cox back to Nevada and the similar lawsuit filed there.

In other developments, Marc Randazza has filed a motion to have Cox declared a vexatious litigant, which would severely impair her ability to continue to file largely identical lawsuits against the same group of people in multiple federal courts. Some of the better parts of the motion include:

Cox is the epitome of a vexatious litigant. Cox’s behavior in this case (and a plethora of others nationwide that are rapidly multiplying) has been intentionally harassing to Plaintiffs and this Court, and calculated to delay the resolution of this case. Cox has also inappropriately used this litigation to continue her harassment of third parties completely unrelated to this dispute. As a result of Cox’s numerous repetitive and unnecessary filings, the docket has already accumulated 128 entries in the timespan of only three months, many of which consist of repetitive motions insisting upon the recusal of the judge, improperly demanding that the Court “investigate” Plaintiff Marc Randazza, requesting unwarranted sanctions, and bizarre motions for discovery that would be unnecessary if Cox responded to Plaintiffs’ requests for a discovery conference (ECF 51 Exh. A), but given the outstanding motion for default as to Eliot Bernstein (ECF 65) and motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims against Cox (ECF 75), discovery is a moot issue. Furthermore, Cox’s filings often ignore the page limits set forth by Local Rule 7-2 and contain the same incomprehensible and impertinent language accusing Plaintiffs, their counsel, Judge Navarro, and a wide array of third parties of all manner of conspiracies.

[snip]

Cox’s conduct in this case is a burden to the Court, Plaintiffs, and the third parties she is harassing. Given that Cox has already ignored this Court’s admonition that she cannot continue to file impertinent motions (see, e.g., ECFs 86, 109), the only effective way to put a stop to Cox’s behavior is for the Court to declare her a vexatious litigant and require her to retain counsel before filing any additional filings in this, or any other, legal action.

[snip]

Cox’s conduct apparently is not restricted to courts within the United States, either. Cox further states “civil action has been filed … in Geneva Switzerland, Republic and Canton of Geneva JUDICIAL POWER Civil Court, Court of First Instance” in her most recent filing. (ECF 128 at 3) Given Cox’s history thus far, it is readily apparent that she will continue to file complaints in different jurisdictions throughout the country and around the world unless she is stopped from doing so. However, it is clear that she has no legally cognizable claims – and that she simply wishes to throw a tantrum in as many courts, and on as many sheets of paper, as possible.

[snip]

Like the vexatious litigant in Lundahl, when Cox “is subject to an adverse determination in one court, she simply moves to a new forum to pursue the same claim.” Id. Cox’s actions in this Court are virtually identical to the conduct at issue in Lundahl, and Cox should receive the same status as a vexatious litigant. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin specifically pointed this out in dismissing Cox’s claim, noting “[i]t is not proper for a litigant to file multiple suits against the same defendant and for the same conduct in multiple courts.” (Exhibit I at 7) Further, because United States District Court for the Southern District of New York transferred Cox’s action to this Court (Exhibit J at 3), Cox now has two identical pro se complaints pending before this Court, premised on the same causes of action, facts, and transactions (see ECF 128 at 2- 3). While it was Cox’s intent to file many actions throughout the country (ECF 128 at 3; Exhibits A-G), the fact that two of her many nearly identical lawsuits are now before this Court (both of which assert the same causes of action this Court struck in its prior order at ECF 89) underscores her calculated abuse of the judicial system.

Cox’s conduct demonstrates that she will file complaint after complaint regardless of the viability of her claims. (Exhibits A-J) The Court has commented on Cox’s motions and propensity for filing impermissible actions. (ECF 86, 89) Cox’s Amended Counter Complaint was dismissed for being “replete with irrelevant material, inappropriate commentary, baseless speculation, and derogatory statements none of which relate to [the] Complaint.” (ECF 89). Further, Cox’s Amended Counter Complaint included “countless allegations against a host of Defendants [that are] unrelated to the […] original Complaint, and are based on statutes that do not provide a private cause of action.” (Id.) While the Court did not explicitly say that Cox’s counterclaim was a waste of court time and resources, the Court’s granting of Plaintiffs’ 12(f) motion carries the same effective meaning, as it was granted “to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trail…” (ECF 89), citing Sidney- Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983).

[snip]

For several years, Cox has made the World Wide Web her vehicle for fighting her manufactured battles against her victims. Cox’s behavior in “Google-bombing” her victims and fiercely attacking them with hundreds of blogs containing all or part of their personal or business names reveals her true intentions. Having found a new, method for harassing her victims, Cox has taken to flooding the docket with motions, much as she has flooded search engines with her cybersquatting domain names and imbedded metatags. She then uploads these filings to her many blogs in order to try and give her extortion scheme some veneer of legitimacy with her wild, unsupportable claims contained in lawsuits she will never serve or prosecute.3 This is not an accident, but rather how Cox deliberately intends to use, and is using (see ECF 128 at 3), the United States District Courts throughout the country.

Cox’s intent is not to vindicate her rights, but to cause irritation, at the least, and further harm, at most, to her myriad victims. Thus, Cox files her lawsuits with the bad faith intent to continue to harass her victims online and off, and should be declared a vexatious litigant. Cox’s bad faith intent to broaden the sweep of individuals she seeks to harass and burden with her litigation is illustrated by her inclusion of Plaintiffs’ counsel and even the Judge presiding over this case in her successive Complaints filed throughout the country.

Naturally, Cox is undeterred by all of these courts throwing out her cases and scolding her for her inappropriate behavior. No, she could not possibly be wrong in her theory and approach. Rather, there is a grand conspiracy in which Marc Randazza runs the courts all around the country, the judges do whatever he says, and the other defendants are engaged in a massive conspiracy with Randazza to ruin Cox’s life.

Crystal Cox doesn’t need any help ruining her life. She does a fine job of that all by herself.

 

Similar Posts:

Tags: , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

Comments (2)

  • Sean Bouhsie

    |

    Wonderful news Ms. Coenen!! Sooner or later her world will come tumbling down. As one of her first victims i have been doing battle with her nutty self since 2008. Unfortunately she is only one of several….

    Reply

Leave a comment

Expert Fraud Investigation
Divorce Investigations
CPA's Handbook of Fraud and Commercial Crime Prevention
Essentials of Corporate Fraud
© 2013 Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting. All rights reserved. View our privacy policy here.