20 Jun

Crystal Cox Complaint Dismissed Again

crystal-cox-compliant-dismissedI realize this is getting repetitive, but it is important for the public to be aware of the activities of vexatious litigant Crystal L. Cox.

Extortionist Crystal Cox has sued a group of defendants in at least ten federal courts (you might call this Cox v. The Internet), with crazed allegations of a massive conspiracy to ruin her life and to steal the iViewIt technology (which was thoroughly litigated years ago).

Cox has already been laughed out of federal district court in Arizona, Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, and Pennsylvania. In Nevada, she has had her motions denied and her electronic filing privileges revoked.

But “try, try again” must be Cox’s motto, because she filed (an equally laughable) amended complaint in Arizona. Unsurprisingly, that complaint has been dismissed too. Notable tidbits from the order include: Read More

14 Jun

Crystal Cox v. The Internet: Motions Denied and Electronic Filing Privileges Revoked

crystal-cox-motion-denied-vexatious-litigantCrystal 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: Read More

11 Jun

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. Read More

30 May

Crystal Cox v. The Internet Dismissed in Eastern District of Wisconsin

extortionCrystal Cox, extortionist and vexatious litigant, has been slapped down by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On May 13, 2013, Cox filed a complaint in federal court against me,  and against a bunch of fine people (WIPO, Peter Michaelson, Marc Randazza, Kashmir Hill, Forbes, Kevin Padrick, David Aman, David Carr, New York Times, Jordan Rushie, Jason Jones, and many others).

The incomprehensible complaint in the case of Crystal Cox v. The Internet alleged defamation, civil rights violations, copyright infringement, civil conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), causation and remoteness, duty of care, negligence tort, tampering with a witness, tortious interference with business, anti-trust laws. Crystal Cox took 124 pages to ramble about vast conspiracies involving trillions of dollars and many bad, bad acts by many bad, bad people.

Most notably, Crystal claims that THE INTERNETS DEFAMED HER when they referred to her as an extortionist. Because who could possibly get the idea that Crystal Cox was extorting people when she flooded the internet with defamatory material about them, and then offered to remove the material (reputation management services, people!) for a nominal fee of $2,500 per month into infinity???? Read More