We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent’s website wondering “where did all the race baiting content
go?” We are here because Mr. Randazza wants Respondent’s blog shut down.
Marc Randazza wants Respondent’s blog shut down because Respondent’s blog expose the lack of knowledge in domain law and exposes Complainant for hypocritically defending Free Speech, yet attacking a Blogger writing about Complainant Marc Randazza.
Marc Randazza wants Respondent’s blog shut down because Crystal Cox makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Randazza by parodying Randazza’’s very rhetorical style.
Randazza’s skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants respondent’s blog shut down.
Mr. Randazza should seek counsel to advise him that under the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Accordingly, Marc Randazza Complainant is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent’s constitutional rights.
Marc Randazza attempts to gather sympathy by arguing that he is being defamed, attacked and that Complainant is misleading his potential clients and has been harming him somehow, that that is quite clearly not the case, as Respondent’s site is satirical political humor, not unlike the famous Campari ad in Hustler v. Falwell. And Respondent’s blog is to expose the hypocritical actions of Domain Name Lawyer / Free Speech / First Amendment Lawyer Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group.