Extortionate Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox: Summary By a Federal Judge

crystal cox extortion
Crystal Cox Might Be an Extortionist

Crystal L. Cox has a perfect record so far in her litigation against a large group people she claims are involved in a vast conspiracy… Every single case gets thrown out of federal court. The latest federal lawsuit by Crystal Cox to get dismissed is in the District of Massachusetts.

Almost as important as the dismissal itself is a 15 page opinion by Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. (Of the 10 district judges in Boston who could have handled this case, the chief herself saw fit to handle this idiocy!) The opinion is important because it summarizes the Crystal Cox saga so well. Cox is not well, so much explanation is necessary to for anyone to understand how Cox went from making up baseless allegations of tax fraud and money laundering by Obsidian Finance and Kevin Padrick, all the way to suing about 65 largely unrelated parties for largely unrelated matters, which Cox alleges are all “connected” to conspiracies steal technology and ruin her life.

You can read the entire opinion here, but I am cutting and pasting liberally from the order to give readers a fairly complete picture of the shenanigans of Crystal L. Cox. (Bold added to selected text by me.)

Read moreExtortionate Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox: Summary By a Federal Judge

Cox v. The Internet: Thrown Out in Florida District Court

Crystal Cox and her looney rantings continue to be thrown out of federal district courts. Now Florida has dismissed Crystal L. Cox’s complaint with some choice words about her conspiracy theories and other nonsense.

The “case” is summarized:

Plaintiff’s 200 page Complaint essentially alleges that all persons and entities that were part of her prior Ninth Circuit legal proceeding, or reported thereon, have conspired to defame and interfere with her First Amendment Rights. The Plaintiff also alleges individual malpractice, conspiracy, and defamation claims against her former attorney , as well as anti-trust and anti-competition claims against Forbes and the New York Times. [D . E . 1].

On Crystal Cox’s case being frivolous and baseless:

Read moreCox v. The Internet: Thrown Out in Florida District Court

Escaping Detection: Why Auditors Do Not Find Fraud

needle-in-a-haystackThis article was originally printed in Valuation Strategies, a magazine published by Thomson Reuters.

Even with all the publicity surrounding the issue of financial fraud in the last decade, most auditors, investors, and other professionals still do not “get it” when it comes to detecting fraud. Traditional financial statement audits were never designed to detect fraud.

The audit is simply a process by which auditors check the company’s math and application of accounting rules. Auditors examine a very small percentage of transactions. Fraud is rarely detected by financial statement audits because they are not aimed at doing so. However, sometimes fraud is detected by auditors, and they can increase their chances of finding fraud if they are so inclined. There are opportunities during each financial statement audit to find fraud, if only the auditors are diligent. One of the keys to becoming better at detecting fraud is by understanding why auditors so often do not find fraud.

Read moreEscaping Detection: Why Auditors Do Not Find Fraud

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 moreCrystal Cox Complaint Dismissed Again

Google Your Financial Advisor BEFORE Investing

jimmy-sodhi-investment-fraud
Jimmy Sodhi / Jimmy Singh

Investors are nearly $2.4 million poorer and Janamjot Singh Sodhi has earned himself an almost 5 year stay at Club Fed, thanks to a Ponzi scheme carried out through a company called Elite Financial Inc.  The fraudster also used the names Jimmy Singh or Jimmy Sodhi.

The scheme ran from 2005 through September 2011, Like any typical Ponzi scheme, Sodhi solicited investors with the promise of high rates of return, and used new investor money to pay “returns” to old investors. At the same time, Sodhi siphoned off money for himself.

Here’s where it gets interesting… Sodhi previously had a license to sell investments, but it was revoked in 2005. In 2006, he was permanently debarred by the New York Stock Exchange. And in 2009, Jimmy Sodhi was ordered to cease and desist all investment advisor activity in California.

Read moreGoogle Your Financial Advisor BEFORE Investing

Bank of America Loan Modification Shenanigans

If you’ve ever attempted to get a home mortgage modification through Bank of America, this news will likely not surprise you.  If it’s true, Bank of America is a disgusting, horrible company. And I’m inclined to believe it is true, since SIX people are saying this is how things went down when homeowners applied for loan modifications under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)…

It doesn’t take much to explain what happened. The former employees of bank of America say that they were encouraged to “lose” paperwork from homeowners, and then later deny their modifications because they “hadn’t submitted their paperwork.” Employees received bonuses (ranging from gift cards to cash) for lying to homeowners and improperly denying modifications under HAMP.

William Wilson, a former BOA case management team manager, detailed how Bank of America would receive documents from homeowners in a timely fashion, but then not act on the mortgage modification requests for months. He said BOA claimed the “… documents were incomplete or missing when they were not, or simply claiming the file was ‘under review’ when it was not.”

Read moreBank of America Loan Modification Shenanigans

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

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