Tracey L. Coenen, SequenceInc Sued for Defamation, Libel, Slander and FLAT OUT LIES. Crystal Cox v. Tracey L. Coenen, SequenceInc

Tracey L. Coenen, SequenceInc 

http://ia601708.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.wied.63287/gov.uscourts.wied.63287.1.0.pdf

Tracey L. Coenen, SequenceInc 

Terracon Consultants Iowa Denver Googles "montana board of engineers, scott curry" Crystal Cox ALLEGES that Scott Curry over bills, double bills 2 clients for the same thing, lies, commits fraud, ruins lives, abuses his power and endangers lives.

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Search Referral:				www.google.com — montana board of engineers, scott curry #4
Host Name:				63-156-144-126.dia.static.qwest.net									Browser:				IE 8.0
IP Address:				63.156.144.126 — [Label IP Address]									Operating System:				Win7
Location:				Denver, Iowa, United States									Resolution:				1280x1024
Returning Visits:				0									Javascript:				Enabled
Visit Length:				8 mins 8 secs									ISP:				Terracon Consultants

Navigation Path

Date	Time	WebPage
		www.google.com — montana board of engineers, scott curry #4
20 May	13:48:37	www.crystalcox.com/2013/05/crystal-l-cox-fights-back-crystal-cox.html
		www.google.com — crystal cox #1
20 May	13:55:54	www.crystalcox.com/
		www.google.com — crystal cox, scott curry #1
20 May	13:56:45	www.crystalcox.com/2013/05/crystal-l-cox-fights-back-crystal-cox.html

Crystal L. Cox v. David Carr, New York Times. Defamation, Anti-Trust, Civil Conspiracy, Negligence, Tortious Interference with Business, Sherman Act Violations ALLEGED by Plaintiff, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox

Note: It is NOT a Contract Dispute as the Cause of Actions Clearly Show. This will be cleared up as soon as possible.   Southern District of New York Cox V. Carr 1:13-cv-03257-UA

Crystal L. Cox v. David Carr, New York Times. Defamation, Anti-Trust


  Crystal L. Cox v. David Carr, New York Times. Defamation, Anti-Trust,  Civil Conspiracy, Negligence, Tortious Interference with Business, Sherman Act Violations ALLEGED by Plaintiff, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

  Southern District of New York Cox V. Carr Docket

Crystal L. Cox v. Tracy L. Coenen, Sequence Inc., Jason Jones, Salty Droid, Marc J. Randazza, Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv-03633

Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv-03633



Crystal Cox v. Tracy Coenen, Jason Jones, Randazza Legal Group, WIPO, Kashmir Hill, Forbes, New York Times, David Carr, Peter L. Michaelson, SaltyDroid, WIPO
 Docket - Case: 1:13-cv-03633

Hey Frederick, Maryland Googling "crystal cox montana documentary" It is Called Beneath the Beauty.

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Search Referral:				www.bing.com — crystal cox montana documentary
Host Name:				c-68-55-136-50.hsd1.md.comcast.net									Browser:				IE 8.0
IP Address:				68.55.136.50 — [Label IP Address]									Operating System:				Win7
Location:				Frederick, Maryland, United States									Resolution:				1093x614
Returning Visits:				0									Javascript:				Enabled
Visit Length:				Not Applicable									ISP:				Comcast Cable

Navigation Path

Date	Time	WebPage
		www.bing.com — crystal cox montana documentary
17 May	09:47:16	www.crystalcox.com/

Beneath the Beauty Documentary

Part One

 

Part Two

Links to Beneath the Beauty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPLi64D96ok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bny-uWxEip0

http://www.beneaththebeauty.com/


 How I Became an Investigative Blogger. Playlist of 5

NOT ON OUR WATCH, PERIOD

Marcus Evans, Inc. v. Coenen et al. Marc J. Randazza Attorney, Tracy L. Coenen Defendant accused of Defamation, Libel Slander. Looks like some pattern and history here. Oh and Tracy Coenen and Marc Randazza, hmm, I ALLEGE Civil Conspiracy.

Marcus Evans, Inc. v. Coenen et al

Plaintiff: Marcus Evans, Inc.
Defendants: Tracy Coenen  and Sequence, Inc.

Case Number: 1:2012cv00163
Filed: January 10, 2012

Court: Illinois Northern District Court
Office: Chicago         Office
County: Cook
Presiding Judge: Matthew F. Kennelly

Nature of Suit: Torts - Injury - Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause: 28:1332
Jurisdiction: Diversity  

http://ia600800.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.264226/gov.uscourts.ilnd.264226.docket.html

Marcus Evans, Inc. v. Coenen et al

Marc J. Randazza (pro hac vice pending)
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP



"AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE VIII STATEMENTS OF OPINION 
 Defendants’ statements concerning Plaintiff, its business and employees are statements of
opinion, rather than fact, and cannot be the proper basis for a defamation claim. As such,
Plaintiff’s claims of defamation fail against the Defendants, as the Defendants have not made
any false statements of fact. "


Source
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiQVBQV0ZvaDc4Z2s/edit?usp=sharing

So odd, Marc J. Randazza and Tracy L. Coenen sure seem to know what defamation is, yet deliberately falsified FACTS regarding Crystal Cox.

In Comparision, in Coenen v. Cox, stating that someone is guilty of a crime, is NOT "Opinion" but I suppose Tracy Coenen and Marc Randazza will try and use that one again. Plaintiff Crystal Cox sure can prove that she was not convicted of nor on trial for extortion, yet above the law Attorney Marc J. Randazza and Fraud Investigator Tracy Coenen get to flat out state the I, Plaintiff Crystal Cox is an extortionist. The Defendants in Coenen v. Cox sure have made false statements of FACT, yet oddly seem to be above the law.

Coenen v. Cox, Click Below to view that Complaint.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkicWtOSFNYbV85cFk/edit?usp=sharing



"AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE VII THE FIRST AMENDMENT 
" The First Amendment of the United States Constitution immunizes the Defendants from
liability for their statements concerning Plaintiff, its business and its employees, as Defendants’
statements are matters of public concern and entitled to Constitutional protection. By operation
of the First Amendment, the Defendants are inoculated from liability arising from their
statements concerning Plaintiff. "

Source
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiQVBQV0ZvaDc4Z2s/edit?usp=sharing


Odd, its like Marc J. Randazza gets this First Amendment thing, yet STOLE massive online media criticizing him, without the First Amendment ever coming in to play, See the SLAPP Lawsuit and First Amendment Smackdown,  Randazza v. Cox
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html


In Coenen v. Cox, Defendants are NOT "inoculated from liability arising from their 
statements concerning Plaintiff". As they FLAT OUT stated false and defamatory statements to a third party concerning Plaintiff Crystal Cox and with FULL knowledge they were and are false.



Coenen v. Cox, Click Below to view that Complaint.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkicWtOSFNYbV85cFk/edit?usp=sharing


 "AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE VI COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE
 Defendants’ statements address matters of public concern and thus are afforded the First
Amendment’s strongest protections. Because of the public import of the Defendants’ statements,
their content is privileged and non-actionable. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims for defamation
must fail as a matter of law. "

Source
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiQVBQV0ZvaDc4Z2s/edit?usp=sharing

Blogger Crystal Cox was posting regarding a federal bankruptcy of public concern, Marc Randazza conspired with the attorneys for Obsidian Finance Group, and attempted to entrap me, Crystal Cox. I was also reporting on, reviewing Marc Randazza who had been my attorney, and who is a public figure, yet he SUED me, in the courts where he is reigning king and shut down massive blogs, deleted blogs, changed servers and all without first amendment adjudication nor any concern for what I was posting that was CERTAINLY of public concern. Marc Randazza is a hypocrite here in the above Tracy L. Coenan case, and after this Tracy Coenen and Marc Randazza defame and harass blogger Crystal Cox, me, as you see here:

Coenen v. Cox, Click Below to view that Complaint.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkicWtOSFNYbV85cFk/edit?usp=sharing


"AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE V RHETORICAL HYPERBOLE
 Defendants’ speech is protected as rhetorical hyperbole, as no reasonable reader of the
statements would interpret them as being statements of fact. As such, they are incapable of
constituting defamation, and Plaintiff’s claims must fail on that basis. "

Source
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiQVBQV0ZvaDc4Z2s/edit?usp=sharing

What a Crock that is, Marc J. Randazza SEIZED domain names, deletes blogs and suppresses free speech and sues for millions all because a blogger, me Crystal Cox was criticizing him, and using " rhetorical hyperbole". Sure seems like Marc J. Randazza, Randazza Legal Group and Tracy Coenen are HYPOCRITES, but that's just my rhetorical opinion.

Coenen v. Cox, Click Below to view that Complaint.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkicWtOSFNYbV85cFk/edit?usp=sharing





"AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I THE ILLINOIS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ACT
 Plaintiff’s instant litigation is brought in connection with, or as retaliation for,
Defendants’ acts in furtherance of their rights to speak, petition or participate in government and
seek favorable action; as such, Plaintiff’s claim is subject to dismissal pursuant to the provision
of the Illinois Citizens Participation Act, 735 ILCS 110/1 et seq. with an award of reasonable
attorneys’ fees to the Defendants."

Source
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiQVBQV0ZvaDc4Z2s/edit?usp=sharing



I wonder if Tracy Coenen will try and use the Illinois Participation act in Cox v. Coenen in Wisconsin where she also has her business?

Marc J. Randazza sure knows all about retaliation. I, Plaintiff Crystal Cox, FIRED Marc Randazza, I criticized him and her got rid of my blogs and cites in pure retaliation and yet is someone above the law. Then he gets his buddy, looks like former client, Tracy L. Coenen to Defame Crystal Cox as well.

Coenen v. Cox, Click Below to view that Complaint.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkicWtOSFNYbV85cFk/edit?usp=sharing





"AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IVSUBSTANTIAL TRUTH
 Defendants’ statements are substantially true and therefore non-defamatory.  So long as
the gist of the Defendants’ statements is correct, the statements are not defamatory."

Source
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiQVBQV0ZvaDc4Z2s/edit?usp=sharing


What a CROCK, either its true or not. WE shall see if Randazza and Coenen say the same thing in Plaintiff Crystal Cox's case against them. As Cox is not guilty of Extortion yet the two of them think they are above the law and can say whatever they like, POWERFUL above the Law Dua, seemingly in heavy duty civil conspiracy, in my OPINION.

Check out Cox v. Coenen, Randazza and more... Click Below to view that Complaint.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkicWtOSFNYbV85cFk/edit?usp=sharing

"Judge Harper takes office" "Harper won the four-year term with a November 2011 election victory over Peggy Ann Bierbaum. Judge Harper started work Jan. 14"

Seriously??  Judge Harper SAYS, "“I particularly want to be involved with young people.” 

You have got to be kidding. Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox says, what a Line of BULL that is. This man is EVIL when it comes to the "young people".

Judge Keith Harper ignores threats to children, gives rights to non-blood family for no lawful reason, ignores convicted rapists having access to victims, and rules in an extremely disrespectful and misogynistic manner.

Judge Keith Harper chooses who he "likes better" and deems more "credible" vs. actually ruling in a manner that applies to LAW and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Judge Keith Harper is NOT for the rights nor the best interest of the "young people". Judge Keith Harper is the whipping boy to Attorney Peggy Bierbaum and the "young people" are the collateral damage to this "cozy" connection, conflicts of interest in my opinion.

"It was standing room only Jan. 11 for the swearing in ceremony of Keith Harper as the fourth Superior Court judge in Jefferson County history.

Harper won the four-year term with a November 2011 election victory over Peggy Ann Bierbaum. Judge Harper started work Jan. 14.

“My goal is to make the Superior Court here the best it can possibly be and be a team player with the rest of the county departments,” Harper said, emphasizing, “It’s very important that people feel what’s going on is fair at all times.”

Harper follows Craddock Verser, who was appointed to the office in March 2004 following the death of Thomas Majhan. Verser won two elections, and initially reported that he would seek a third full term, but changed his mind less then a week later after fully considering his health complications from pancreatic cancer diagnosed in 2011.

“When I realized I could no longer serve, [Keith Harper] immediately came to mind and I asked him if he would run and I would back him,” Verser told the audience at the Jan. 11 ceremony.

Harper was the City of Port Townsend attorney when Verser moved here in 1986, and Verser said he quickly learned that “he is a man of integrity which is extremely important when dealing with a lawyer in a small town."

 Welcome, Judge Harper

Harper offered a long list of thank-you's, from his 2012 election opponents Bierbaum and Mike Haas, for running "positive and competitive" campaigns to his campaign managers, Bickie and Gary Steffan. He talked about lawyers who had helped shape his career, and expressed love for his wife of 33 and a half years, Jeinell, son Nick and daughter Melissa.

“Everything I’ve ever done in my life, my family and my extended family have always been very supportive of me,” Harper said. “I appreciate them very, very much.”

Harper's son, Sen. Nick Harper, D-Everett, spoke about his father.

“A father is [very] similar to a judge, I guess,” Nick Harper said. “And we couldn’t have been more fortunate to have that guidance throughout our childhood.”

Looking ahead

After being sworn in and donning his judge’s robe, Judge Harper named his three court commissioners to cover certain courts and fill in when he is out of county or has a conflict of interest.
“It goes without saying, all of these people are very intelligent,” Harper said.

The three new commissioners are Stephen Gillard, Richard Shaneyfelt and Harry Holloway III. Harper previously served as one of Verser’s three court commissioners, with Noah Harrison and Bierbaum.

Harper plans to be active in the county’s specialty courts, including drug court and juvenile court.

“I’m going to try to use the commissioners as little as possible,” he said. “I particularly want to be involved with young people.”

At the close of his remarks, Harper had some words of thanks and support for Verser, whose cancer treatments are ongoing.

“I wouldn’t be standing here now at the podium if it wasn’t for Crad Verser,” he said. “My family – all of our hopes and prayers – are with you.”

Source
http://ptleader.com/Main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=32863