Crystal Cox has taken several more steps down the road to being laughed out of federal court and declared a vexatious litigant. In addition to multiple federal district courts dismissing Cox’s duplicative and frivolous cases against a myriad of defendants, the District of Nevada has denied a slew of motions filed by Cox and has revoked her electronic filing privileges. (This means that if Crystal L. Cox wishes to file any further motions or other documents in the case of Randazza v. Cox, she will have to print them and send them to the court.)
Between mid-January 2013 and the beginning of May 2013, Cox filed ten motions in this case, all including rantings about identical conspiracies and plots in an incomprehensible and delusional fashion. Here is a summary of Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen’s orders issued yesterday:
- Motion for Preservation of Evidence – Cox asked the court to print blogs and websites – - a fourteen page list – - to preserve evidence. DENIED.
- Motion for Protective Order – A protective order is requested because Cox says she is being threatened, stalked,
intimidated, and harassed by Marc Randazza and his “co-conspirators.” She mentions various conspiracies and issues (like the iViewit Technology patent) with have nothing to do with this case. DENIED. The criminal statutes cited by Cox in her motion do not provide a basis for the relief she seeks.
- Motion Regarding Insurance – Motion is largely unintelligible and seeks multiple court orders. “… Cox rails against Randazza, his attorneys, and others in a delusional way.” “…. “demands the court investigate” various matters, including the car bombings of iViewIt inventors, the conspiracy involving Randazza, the INTA, WIPO, and WIPO Panelist Peter L. Michaelson. Finally, she demands the court print out various blogs in their entirety to
be included as evidence in this case.” DENIED. “There is no legal basis for ordering Randazza to notify his liability carrier, if he has one, because Randazza is the Plaintiff, not a Defendant, in this case. Cox has not stated any legal or factual basis for her request to require Randazza to retain outside counsel. Judge Navarro has considered and denied Cox’s request that Judge Navarro recuse herself from hearing this case.”
- Motion For Investigation – Cox asked the court to notify investigators and authorities about suspected criminal activities of Marc Randazza and his co-conspirators, including the FBI, Department of Justice, FTC, SEC, Attorney General, and more. DENIED. Cox is abusing electronic filing privileges because she is filing duplicative motions, and she has cited no statutory authority or case law supporting her demand.
- Motion For Sanctions – Crystal L. Cox requested that Marc Randazza and Ronald Green (attorney with Randazza Legal Group) be sanctioned because Randazza wrote to witness Stephanie DeYoung to request a deposition. DENIED. The motion is unintelligible, and Cox has not attempted to meet and confer. This filing is an example of Cox’s repeated abuse of electronic filing privileges.
- Motion For Admissions – STRICKEN. Discovery requests such as these interrogatories are to be served on opposing parties after discovery is authorized, and are not to be filed with the court.
- Motion to Enjoin – Crystal Cox seeks an order “enjoining” the Attorneys General of Nevada, Washington, New York,
Florida, California, and the United States “into this case” because this case involves “gang stalking, threats to [Cox], threats to [Cox’s] sources, abuse of process, attorneys rogue abusing [Cox’s] civil rights and the civil rights of [Cox’s] informants, sources and those [Cox] reports on.” Motion at 1. She contends the court is protecting Plaintiff Marc Randazza and acting outside of the law, violating her constitutional rights.” DENIED. “Enjoin” means to prohibit something, not join a party to litigation. Motion is frivolous.
- Motion for Clarification on Defendant’s Media Status – The motion is largely unintelligible. Cox asks the court to clarify whether it considers her a media defendant. The court has already explained its reasons for issuing a preliminary injunction, and a ruling on “media status” is “nonsensical and not related to any bona fide dispute before the court.” DENIED.
- Motion to Proceed In Informa Pauperis and Motion to Appoint Counsel – An application to proceed in forma pauperis is made by a plaintiff, and in this case, Cox is a defendant. “Cox is not permitted to file multiple requests for the same relief. It clogs the court’s docket, wastes judicial resources, and impedes the timely and efficient
administration of this case.” DENIED. A request for pro bono representation is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances, none of which Cox has shown. DENIED.
- Motion for Insurance Documentation – Cox asks for information on Randazza’s insurance because he “has liability that must be disclosed to his insurance provider.” DENIED. Cox’s counterclaims against Randazza were dismissed, so there are no claims against him which require disclosure of the insurance policies of Randazza Legal Group.
- Motion to Revoke ECF Privileges – Randazza requested that Crystal Cox’s electronic filing privileges be revoked because she filed numerous unnecessary filings with “nonsensical allegations,” and has burdened the court with these filings. Cox did not respond to or oppose the motion. GRANTED. In less than five months, Cox filed 59 different documents, many exceeding the page limitations in the local rules. She has also filed multiple requests for the same relief. “…the majority of Cox’s filings are repetitive and contain scurrilous allegations about Plaintiffs and others as well as irrelevant, impertinent, and scandalous information attached as exhibits.” Cox’s actions are impeding the administration of this case, and are an abuse of her electronic filing privileges.
Slowly but surely, Crystal Cox is being dealt with by the federal court system. The crazy train will likely continue on down the track, however, with Cox filing more nonsensical and unsubstantiated cases. You should also expect her to attempt to extort more individuals and businesses. That’s just how Cox rolls.
- Crystal Cox Complaint Dismissed Again
- Cox v. The Internet: Frivolous Crystal Cox Cases Dismissed Again and Again and Again
- Crystal Cox v. The Internet Dismissed in Eastern District of Wisconsin
- Cox v. The Internet: Thrown Out in Florida District Court
- Extortionate Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox: Summary By a Federal Judge
Trackback from your site.