Sunday, February 9, 2014

Marc Randazza and his Buddies Lawyers Jordan Rushie and Scott Greenfield think that THEY control the client. This is NOT Ethical nor Constitutional say's Crystal Cox.

Marc Randazza and his gang stalking attorney buddies blog, file motions, lie to media, lie to WIPO and create evidence to use in their cases against litigants that is "made up". This also works to force settlements and to pressure insiders and whistleblowers to SHUT UP.

Marc Randazza, tried to make me sit down and shut up in my case, so I FIRED HIM, and went with Eugene Volokh to be the face of this massive human rights and constitutional rights issue.

Scott Greenfield, Marc Randazza, Jordan Rushie, Ken White at and more of the "gang" Seem to think it is ethical and lawful to treat clients badly and violate their constitutional and human rights along the way. Their theory seems to be We, the LAWYERS control the Clients and they Pay Us To Do It. And the client must sit down and shut up, have no voice and do as we say, then pay us our billable hours on time.

So I agree with this person below, as it is NOT right to Control your client, even if Pro Bono, you work for the clients best interest and the best interest of the Greater Good.

Oh but Marc Randazza's buddy JUDGE Gloria Navarro FORCES those who are Pro BONO to pay Randazza Legal Group anyway, as shown in the link below and J. Malcom DeVoy of Randazza Legal Group.

Blog Post Titled, “Lady, your case is over when *I* say it’s over – I’m your lawyer.”

"The author of this blog post, one Scott Greenfield, seems blissfully unaware that the main takeaway from it isn’t “what the hell is wrong with Eugene Volokh?” but rather “memo: never, ever hire this blogger to be my lawyer.”
Volokh apparently took pro bono a case defending an obnoxious blogger, and won. But the court wrote, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.” And Volokh then filed a motion to amend the op to remove the offending language.

Which Greenfield takes as what I trust is a metaphorical indication that Volokh is “in bed with” this Cox blogger, and that some improper motive must be at work, because hey, it’s not a substantive point, Volokh won, case should be over.
That is not how TBA practices law – how ’bout y’all? I agree to take an appeal, it’s over when there’s no more relief to be had or the client says to call it quits.
UPDATE: Here is Pamela MacLean on the matter:
What Cox didn’t like was a single sentence in the opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz that stated, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”
Last week, her lawyer Eugene Volokh asked the court to amend its opinion, not to change the substance of the ruling, but to delete the offending sentence. The claim of “payoffs” was based on a single New York Times article in 2011.
“A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word ‘apparently,’ could be based on the record in a case, or authoritative finding by another court. But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process,” Volokh wrote. He said there “seems to be no ‘history’ of ‘seeking payoffs’ claimed in the article, he said.
Not surprisingly, some news outlets repeated the sentence but omitted the term “apparently,” he said. Journalists may perceive it as a factual finding, not just recitation of a newspaper column’s claim.
Good for Volokh."
Source of Post

Some Comments from the Blog Post

"Tom Freeland (@NMissC)

Here’s what we know from these posts:
1) Volkh has a client, and, consulting the client about legitimate goals, has acted on that client’s wishes about those legitimate goals.
2) Volkh understands that “having a client” is like being pregnant– you are or aren’t. Refusing to pursue the client’s legitimate goals in litigation one has undertaken is not being the client’s lawyer. This even extends to repulsive clients.
3) SHG is a blogger who appears to be a criminal defense lawyer, which means, presumably, that SHG has had the experience of pursuing the legitimate goals of repulsive clients, unless SHG has had an extremely unusual criminal practice.
4. SHG apparently admits that Volkh’s efforts as Cox’s lawyer, in affirming an important free speech issue, is a worthy thing.
5. SHG finds Cox repulsive from prior behavior, and therefore thinks Volkh should either decline to pursue Cox’s legitimate goals as a client or… I’m not sure or what. I’m also not sure what part of “a lawyer representing a client” SHG fails to understand, but am sure it’s an important part.
I hope that SHG stays out of those areas of law where some think they can represent a “cause” as distinct from the client whose case embodies that cause."

FEBRUARY 5, 2014 AT FEBRUARY 5, 2014


… “When we are retained on appeal for the purpose of seeking reversal of an adverse judgment, our core representation is to obtain that reversal.”

Miss. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.2(a): “A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.”

MRPC 1.2(c): “A lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation if the client gives informed consent.”

Scott H. Greenfield: “I agree that the motion has some merit, and that the court’s cite to a newspaper article was inadequate.”

SHG wants to argue that the objective is just “get the decision reversed” and that he doesn’t have to do anything that’s not a means to that end. He is free to draft his representation agreements to that effect. However, taken literally, that means that (for instance) the court could rule for the appellant but also, say, issue a show-cause order why the appellant should not be sanctioned on some issue, and the lawyer could shrug and say “good luck with that, you’re on your own.”

SHG concedes that Cox’s motion “has some merit.” So as her lawyer, Volokh is supposed to tell her, sorry lady, even though your motion has merit and might be granted, I don’t feel like doing it?

The only time the “means” question comes up in my practice is that the client can’t instruct me to act unprofessionally (e.g., to refuse reasonable accommodation to opp. counsel who need a resetting or an extension). I’m retained against the other party, not against the other party’s lawyers.

Lawyer’s Creed (as adopted by Miss. Bar): ” I will strive to represent you as I would want to be represented and to be worthy of your trust.” It appears to me that Volokh is living up to that creed. We represent clients: we stand in their shoes: we put their interests above our own. I do not think SHG’s attitude passes the golden-rule test embodied in the creed."

We find ourselves faced with people whose highest form of argument is to respond by calling the offending blogger stupid."


I’m convinced.
… The latest batch of comments includes these gems:
Any trench lawyer knows this thing called “client control.” That’s where you say “Client, if you act like this, I am going to quit representing you.”
Right. Because the court has nothing to say about that.
At this point seems like the client is controlling Volkoh… not the other way around.
A client controlling the person representing her! How bizarre! As if the lawyer were just there to serve the client!"
Source of Above Post and Comments

A Video with some more Insights regarding Randazza's Rule of Law over Clients.

At 14:30 note comment of Marc Randazza Slamming Eugene Volokh. At 12 Minutes you see Marc Randazza claiming that Volokh should CONTROL his client.

More on What Drives Marc Randazza's Rage Against Blogger Crystal Cox

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.