Embedded Files
I REVEREND CRYSTAL L COX, MARC RANDAZZA Randazza Legal Group, FORMER CLIENT, AFFIRM, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF AND EXPERIENCE, THAT MARC JOHN RANDAZZA OF RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP IS CORRUPT. Also look into Marcy Marcy, Marc's jail time at a young age and perhaps his connections to high profile democrats. Dig Deep. YES Marc Randazza is CORRUPT, and Evil. eMail me for more information ReverendCrystalCox@gmail.com
"Cohen Davis Solicitors
Date: 09 October 2020
Our Ref: AB/510116
Private and Confidential (BAHAHA)
By Hand
Dear Mr Allcock,
Re: Letter of Claim — Not for Publication
We act for Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group (together "our clients"). This letter is written in relation to an online campaign of defamation and harassment against our clients, the main focus of which has been the online publication by you of allegations that Mr. Randazza is corrupt.
This letter intends to set out our clients' case against you under the Defamation Act 2013 ("the DA"), the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ("the PHA"), malicious falsehood and harassment. We write to give you notice of our clients' intention to make an application to the High Court in London for an injunction to prohibit you from continuing your campaign, if you do not agree to bring it to an end immediately. It is written pursuant to the Pre-Action
Protocol for Media and Communications Claims which we attach to this letter of claim.
Background
Mr Randazza is the managing partner of Randazza Legal Group in the US and an attorney who specializes in First Amendment and Intellectual Property matters nationwide. Randazza Legal Group ("RLG") is a group of US attorneys who represent clients on a wide array of First Amendment, Intellectual Property and defamation issues.
On 2 September 2020, our clients sent a letter of claim to you, in your role as Director of Webain Limited ("Webain"), at its registered office Vantage House, East Terrace Business Park, Euxton Lane, Lancashire, PR7 6TB. In addition, our clients emailed the letter of claim to you at the following email addresses:
1. sam.allcock@abcmonev.co.uk
2. sam@prfire.com
3. sam@newsanvwav.com
4. sam@webain.co.uk
Your responsibility for publication
The letter of claim served on you on 2 September 2020, set out in detail that our clients consider you responsible for a campaign in relation to their clients from the websites owned and/or operated by you at newsanyway.com, ABCMoney.co.uk and PRFire.com (together "the Websites"). This letter of claim does not intend to repeat the allegations put to you in the letter of 2 September 2020. However, it is significant to note that our clients' letter to you, provided you an opportunity to notify them if you disputed you are the owner and/or operator of one or more of the Websites and you failed to do so. Consequently, our clients will rely upon and draw the Court's attention to the inference that is drawn by your failure to dispute you own and/or are responsible for the Websites.
In addition, you are a Director of Link Baits Ltd, the company which owns the copyright to Fortune Herald and which is published online at https://fortuneherald.com. On 26 September 2020, you publish an article at https://fortuneherald.com/press-release/corrupt-attorney-marc-randazza-represents-dwight-schar-and-bella-collinas-reputation in relation to Mr. Randazza and it is clear that as the owner and/or operator of the Fortune Herald website, you are responsible for publishing this article.
All reference to the Websites in this letter of claim from this point onward should be taken to include reference to fortuneherald.com.
The Publications complained of and their meaning
On 26 September 2020, you publish an article at the following URL https://fortuneherald.com/press-release/corrupt-attorney-marc-randazza-represents-dwight-schar-and-bella-collinas-reputation entitled "Corrupt Attorney Randazza represents Dwight Schar and Bella Collina's Reputation" ("the First Publication"). The First Article purports to be written by Mark Behimer and to date is shown on fortuneherald.com as having been shared 17 times.
In the First Article you publish, you allege the following:
"Marc Randazza is probably one of the most corrupt attorneys in America. Randazza is so corrupt that Avvo, a legal online registry, issued the lowest rating possible of 1 out of 10 and marked Randazza's profile with a warning "Extreme Caution"...reviews are fake and intended to only cover up the endless Bar complaints against Randazza in all states where he sells his legal work...even the UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEWMRK OFFICE has suspended Randanzza...Corrupt Attorney Randazza...fired by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones... "rude"
Randazza was so bad...had to fire him...told by a Connecticut judge that Randazza was "tainted". The same judge accused Randazza of "serious misconduct"...Randazza lied while filing claims...in the state... where he was not licenced to practice...
...Attorney Marc Randazza is Too Unethical to Represent Alex Jones..lawyer-to-the-trolls got booted... "outrageous" Randazza is with fascists and racists.
Randazza...also represented several Neo-Nazis in court...an attorney who has major ethical violations attached to his name, who tries to strike at the racial divide in America...
...needed and "untainted," lawyer. That's why he fired Marc Randazza...
Randazza Is In Trouble In Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Florida, California...
In every state where Randazza is practicing law he has been reprimanded, sued by the local Bar, suspended or placed on probation, and has multiple Bar complaints. The charges range from misconduct to bribery..."
In the First Publication you include a tag named 'Corrupted Marc Randazza' which takes users of your website to https:(/fortuneherald.com/tag(corrupted-marc-randazza/ and in which you publish the following allegations:
Marc Randazza is probably one of the most corrupt attorneys in America. Randazza is so corrupt that Avvo, a legal online registry, issued the lowest rating possible of 1 out of 10 and marked Randazza's profile with a warning "Extreme Caution"." ("the Second Publication").
On 29 September 2020, you publish an article at the following URL https://www.newsanyway.com/2020/09/29/whv-the-florida-bar-still-allows-dwight-scharscorrupted-attorney-marc-randazza-to-practice-law/ ("the Third Publication").
The Third Publication, entitled "WHY THE FLORIDA BAR STILL ALLOWS DWIGHT SCHAR'S CORRUPTED ATTORNEY MARC RANDAZZA TO PRACTICE LAW' states it is 'By The Reported and provides users with a hyperlink to the URL at https:(/www.newsanvwav.com/author/doni/ ("the Fourth Publication".)
The Fourth Publication states, "The Reporter Reporting world research and opinions" and it provides extracts and links to 17 publications by Mr Don Juravin, the oldest of which was published two years ago and the most recent of which was published on 29 September 2020. The letter our clients sent to you on 2 September 2020 set out the basis for the claim that you repeatedly act as the mouthpiece for Mr Juravin by publishing false and defamatory statements made by Mr Juravin in relation to their clients.
The Third Publication lists the publication as "Business, Consumer Advice, News" and provides a hyperlink from each category to republish the Third Publication at the following URLs:
https://www.newsanyway.com/category/business/ ("the Fifth Publication") https://www.newsanyway.com/category/consumer-advice( ("the Sixth Publication") https://www.newsanyway.com/category/news/page/2/ ("the Seventh Publication").
In the Third Publication you allege the following:
"Attorney Marc Randazza, who was fired...because a Connecticut judge accused him of "serious misconduct " corrupt V1arc Randazza...Randazza has been disciplined by the state bars in four out of the five states he is licensed to practice law.... "tainted" Randazza to practice.
..ethical violations ...sued by the State Bar of Nevada on nine charges of violations. These
violations were:
Communication,
Conflict of Interest: Current Clients,
Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules,
Imputation of Conflicts of Interest,
Safekeeping Property,
Declining or Terminating Representation, Advisor,
Restrictions on Right to Practice,
Misconduct.
Marc Randazza GUILTY of Bribery & Shady Loan
..guilty to two of the ethical violations: the bribe and the shady loan.
..Randazza tried to cover up the facts with recommendations.
Randazza Fired...
...Randazza is "curiously chummy" with fascists and racists...represented several Neo-Nazis in
court...
...judge accused Randazza of "serious misconduct. "...Randazza (Randazza Legal Group) lied while filing claims... where he was not licensed to practice.
Randazza also mocked Don Juravin's Jewish heritage...
Avvo Warns Consumers About Randazza
Legal registry Avvo rated him I out 10 with "extreme caution" because he had received disciplinary action. Several five-star reviews boosted his profile, however, some of them were very long and very poorly written...
Other state bars have also initiated legal action against Randazza. The State Bar of Arizona issued a public reprimand and a suspension of his legal license.
..Reprimand and Probation against Marc Randazza
.Randazza was disciplined and the recommendation of the Disciplinary Panel was upheld by the Supreme Court of Nevada...
...the Arizona State Bar issued a public reprimand and a suspension based upon some of the misconduct that took place...alleged misconduct by Randazza to include allegedly lying in court documents... "
In the Third Publication, you include several hyperlinks to take readers of the Third Publication to additional publications in relation to our clients and in doing so, you are responsible for publishing those articles. We give you notice that, subject to your response to this claim, our clients will include a claim against you as the publisher of the articles reached from the hyperlinks in the Third Publication.
Furthermore, in the Third Publication, you list several URLs which we set out below:
https://www.pornnewstoday.com/index.php/2018/10/15/attornev-marc-randazza-ofrandazza-legal-group-law-license-has-been-suspended-in-nevada/ https://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/?fbclid=lwAR3nWJ4yNWRwDYIOEYvOzV s2Wl14dpRpG 9LUS5fmRVL8i2T-ZwHMb9aWAhttps://www.prlog.org/12384475-bribe-allegations-integritv-complaint-filed-against-nevsenator-iustin-iones.html https://news.knowledia.com/US/en/articles/bribery-gay-porn-and-copyright-trolls-the-rise-and-fall-of-lawyer-marc-bd7a729c0dfaf8fbeaf24707484bda7b2e9d0b42https://flashy-news.com/connecticut-judge-attorney-marc-randazza-is-too-unethical-to-represent-alex-jones/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/how-copyright-lawyer-marc-randazza-got-famous-lost-friends-and-went-broke/
You publish these URLs and consequently are responsible for their content. In particular, we draw your attention to the allegations against our clients, a selection of which we set out below to illustrate the nature and seriousness of the statements made against our clients:
Mr Randazza was responsible for aiding and abetting;
Mr Randazza has a gang of stalking attorneys who abuse the court process and enable each other to threaten and harass women, to destroys the lives of women and drive them to suicide;
Mr Randazza is racist, homophobic and misogynistic;
Mr Randazza is a speech advocate for paedophiles;
Mr Randazza is unethical and it is likely he bribed a State Senator;
Mr Randazza is an attorney for racists, fascists, rape advocates, propagandists and extremists;
Mr Randazza accepts solicited bribes;
Mr Randazza is dishonest;
White supremacy rights lawyers work for Randazza Legal Group.
We reserve the right to include a full list of the allegations you are responsible for publishing from the hyperlinks if it is necessary to pursue Court proceedings against you.
On 1 October 2020, you publish an article at the following URL https://www.abcmoney.co.uk/2020/10/01/why-state-bar-of-nevada-allows-corrupt-marc-randazza-to-practice-law/ ("the Seventh Publication"). 3 .
The Seventh Publication is entitled "WHY STATE BAR OF NEVADA ALLOWS CORRUPT MARC RANDAZZA TO PRACTICE LAW? By Frank Williams".
In the Seventh Publication you allege:
"With so many accusations of bribery, misconduct, and ethical violations...the State Bar of
Nevada still allow "tainted" Marc Randazza to practice law...
The State Bar of Nevada sued Randazza for violating Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct on nine counts.... He broke the rules in regards to:
Communication,
Conflict of Interest: Current Clients,
Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules,
Imputation of Conflicts of Interest,
Safekeeping Property,
Declining or Terminating Representation, Advisor,
Restrictions on Right to Practice,
Misconduct.
Nevada Bar agaisnt Marc Randazza
WHY IS MARC RANDAZZA STILL AN ATTORNEY - DISBAR ATTORNEY RANDAZZA
.. Randazza violated ethics when he workedfor pornographers...
Randazza two-timed his clients, who were pornographers, by working for other clients, who were also pornographers. He "solicited illicit payoffs, "...Randazza tried to bribe a website so that he wouldn't sue them, again. This solicitation was a violation Of the me-Y-.g.d..g-ß-ule-:-2f
Professional Conduct.
...violations of ethics. His license was suspendedfor a year...
Randazza actually pleaded guilty to two violations: a bribe and a shady loan. He appealed his suspension...but was rejected.
Randazza also conducted himself in a racistfashion...
...Randazza Had To Be Fired...
"outrageous" Randazza is "curiously chummy" with fascists and racists. Randazza has also represented several Neo-Nazis in court... "rude" Randazza was so bad that...had to fire him...
told by a Connecticutjudge that Randazza was "tainted. " The same judge accused Randazza
of "serious misconduct. "...Randazza lied whilefiling claims... where he was not licensed to practice...
Attorney Marc Randazza Is Too Unethical To Represent Alex Jones...
lawyer-to-the-trolls got booted...needed an "untainted lawyer"...
Is the State Bar of Nevada as Corrupted As Marc Randazza?
...Marc Randazza's case as if it were a misstep. He was subject to a suspension of his legal license...this is not the first time, nor is it the last time, that Randazza has run into problems.
Legal registry Avvo rated him 1 out 10 with "extreme caution" because he had received disciplinary action. Several five-star reviews boosted his profile, however, some of them were very long and very poorly written...
Other state bars have also initiated legal action against Randazza. The
Arizona issued a public reprimand and a suspension of his legal license.
. accused Randazza of being associated with the websites that supposedly published defamatory statements about Snyder...
Corrupt Attorney Marc Randazza...
Marc Randazza is probably one of the most corrupt attorneys in America. Randazza is so corrupt that Avvo, a legal online registry, issued the lowest rating possible of 1 out of 10 and marked Randazza's profile with a warninq "Extreme Caution". One can easily assume that the reviews are fake and intended to only cover up the endless Bar complaints against
Randazza in all states where he sells his legal work... the UNITED STATES PATENT AND
TRADEMARK OFFICE has suspended Marc Randanzza.
... Corrupt Attorney Randazza
..Marc Randazza was fired...
But "rude" Randazza was so bad that...had to fire him...told by a Connecticut judge that
Randazza was "tainted. " The same judge accused Randazza of "serious misconduct. "...Randazza lied while filing claims...where he was not licensed to practice. ..."outrageous" Randazza is with fascists and racists. Randazza has also represented several Neo-Nazis in court...
...an attorney who has major ethical violations attached to his name, who tries to strike at the racial divide in America.
Randazza Is In Trouble In Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Florida, California
In every state where Marc Randazza is practicing law he has been reprimanded, sued by the local Bar, suspended or placed on probation, and has multiple Bar complaints. The charges range from misconduct to bribery...
...accused Randazza of being associated with the websites that supposedly published defamatory statements
In the Seventh Publication, you include several hyperlinks to take readers of the Seventh Publication to additional publications including the First and the Third Publication in relation to our clients and in doing so, you are responsible for publishing all the articles readers can access from the hyperlinks in the Seventh Publication. We give you notice that, subject to your response to this claim, our clients will include a claim against you as the publisher responsible for the articles reached from the hyperlinks in the Seventh Publication (together ['the Publications").
For the purposes of a claim in defamation and malicious falsehood, in the natural and ordinary meaning, the words in the Publications complained of mean and would be understood to mean that Mr Randazza is corrupt and dishonest; he is guilty of serious misconduct including bribery and 'shady' loads; he is unethical and guilty of professional misconduct including deception and concealment and as a result of his misconduct, his licence to practice law was suspended. He has been sued by the State Bar of Nevada for multiple violations of serious misconduct and as a result, other State Bars are pursuing legal action against Mr Randazza. In addition, as a result of this misconduct, AVVO has issued a warning about Mr Randazza and he is responsible for creating and/or publishing false positive reviews in relation to his legal work. The words in the Publications complained of also mean and would be understood to mean that Mr Randazza is a fascist, a racist and homophobic.
The true position
The true position is that Mr Randazza is not corrupt or dishonest. He does not engage in bribery or 'shady' loans. He has not guilty of 'serious misconduct' in his legal practice. Mr Randazza is a practicing Attorney in the US who upholds his professional and ethical duties.
Mr Randazza has not been sued by the State Bar of Nevada or any other State Bar in the US. He accepts that he was subject to joint disciplinary proceedings between the Florida Bar and the Nevada Bar. However, the disciplinary proceedings relate to two alleged violations rather than nine violations as you allege in your publication and the nature of the alleged discipline is also misrepresented in the Publications. Furthermore, the joint disciplinary proceedings found there is no evidence that Mr Randazza engaged in activities contrary to his clients' interests and his right to practice law has never been suspended. AVVO has never issued a warning to consumers in relation to our clients and they do not create and/or publish false reviews of their services. Mr Randazza has never, to his knowledge, been investigated or charged with any offence of corruption and the allegation of him being corrupt is pure fabrication. Furthermore, the allegations of Mr Randazza being a fascist, racist and homophobic and wholly false.
Serious harm
Our clients will be able to satisfy the requirements of sl(2) of the Defamation Act 2013 (%1(2)") and demonstrate that the Publications are defamatory and have caused and/or are likely to cause serious financial loss. The allegations you publish are serious ones, which concern compliance with professional, legal and ethical duties, involving corruption, bribery, dishonesty and serious misconduct. These defamatory and false statements are ones which go to the heart of Mr Randazza's private and professional reputation as well as the reputation of RIG.
Further, the Publications appear prominently on Google for the distinctive name of our clients. Therefore, the allegations are substantially published on Google, directly to our clients. Given how heavily regulated the legal profession is, anyone conducting due diligence and research on the internet via Google, will come across your Publications, and the highly defamatory allegations. Many of those who read the defamatory and false statements about our clients will have decided that our clients are corrupt and criminals, and as a result not trust them.
Malicious Falsehood
In addition, or an alternative to a claim of defamation against you, our client is entitled to pursue a claim for malicious falsehood. The allegations in your Publications are false and it appears you posted them maliciously, or at least that you did not care whether or not the claims that you made against our clients were false and have caused or are likely to cause our clients serious harm.
Harassment and privacy
Your defamatory and malicious campaign has seriously infringed Mr Randazza's right to privacy, has harassed him in the most distressing way possible and damaged his reputation. The focus of our clients' claim in defamation is the content of the Publications you posted on the Websites and which may have been shared online.
However, all of the information concerning Mr Randazza which forms part of the campaign gives rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is very well established that the question of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy is a broad one, which takes account of all the circumstances of the case.
The circumstances in which you publish allegations on the Websites following our client sending you a letter of claim is all information which is inherently private, and plainly attracts an expectation of privacy.
The communication between our client and you and any other individual he has written to in relation to the claims put to you, will also attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. They were made in circumstances with no suggestion that they might become public.
The allegation of criminality by Mr Randazza, to the effect that he corrupt, he lies in Court and is guilty of bribery when the true position is, he has never been arrested, charged or convicted of any of the offences you allege. Despite this, your allegations of unlawful conduct against Mr Randazza will also attract privacy and confidentiality.
Mr Randazza will consider reporting your harassment to Police should it continue but we make it clear that the investigation into the report will also attract a reasonable expectation of privacy as a matter of Police policy and as a matter of law (see Richard v BBC [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch); [2018] 3 WLR 1715). Neither Mr Randazza nor the Police have done anything to undermine the principle that such matters are private and confidential, and the same obligation is expected by you.
Further, the right to privacy protects both against a loss of secrecy or confidentiality and against intrusion. The latter is an important element of the modern law of privacy, see PJS v News Group Newspapers [2016] UKSC 26; [2016] AC 1081. You have published Mr Randazza's name, his image and personal information, alongside false and defamatory allegations in the context of your campaign. However, Mr Randazza is entitled to protection from the very serious intrusion which results from his ongoing and/or further identification as the subject of disclosures relating to the matters referred to above, should the campaign persist online.
Additionally, the campaign amounts to harassment for the purposes of the PHA. The relentless pursuit of Mr Randazza via the Websites, including through publication of hyperlinks, URLs and tags which aim to harass him by targeting his business interests, and by extracts copied from official documents in order to present an element of authenticity to the Publications, together with your allegations of criminality, is utterly oppressive.
Harassment is a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct, targeted at another person, which is calculated to and does cause that person alarm, fear or distress. A well-established summary of the law on harassment explains that: there must be conduct which occurs on at least two occasions, which is targeted at the claimant, which is calculated in an objective sense to cause alarm or distress, and which is objectively judged to be oppressive and unacceptable (although it is now clear that the claimant need not be the target of the conduct). What is oppressive and unacceptable may depend on the context in which the conduct occurs, and a line is to be drawn between conduct which is unattractive and unreasonable, and conduct which has been described in various ways, as "torment" of the victim, or "of an order which would sustain criminal liability".
Publication may ground liability in harassment and, in relation to harassing publications on the internet, it is established that publication of individuals' names on websites in the knowledge that such publications will inevitably come to their attention on more than one occasion and on each occasion cause them alarm and distress constitutes harassment, and that where publication is an ongoing one on a prominent website, the distress and alarm caused by the publication will also be continuous (see Law Society v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 (QB); [20141 EMLR 2).
Your publications have been published on the Websites and/or in circumstances where it was inevitable that they would come to Mr Randazza's attention via his immediate circle, his colleagues and business associates, as well as his family and friends. Further, the Publications and disclosures identifying Mr Randazza as an alleged wrongdoer, and exposing him, are permanently available on the Websites and online. It is inevitable that the Publications in question will come to Mr Randazza's attention on more than one occasion and on each occasion cause him alarm and distress. He is finding the effects of the campaign tormenting to the point of being unbearable, and it has caused him extreme distress, fear and anxiety. He feels threatened by you, and in particular, your allegations which imply he is corrupt, a fascist, a racist and homophobic represent a genuine threat to the physical safety of him and his family.
Mr Randazza will inevitably suffer reputational damage as a result of your campaign. Our client accepts that he was involved in joint disciplinary proceedings with the Florida and Nevada Bar. However, this is not, for the reasons explained, the nub of his complaint, which is focused on his entitlement to protect his privacy, to be free from harassment and defamatory allegations by you and other parties online. Any intention on your part to cause reputational harm and damage which has been or is only partially successful, does not mean that the campaign has not had a very damaging effect on Mr Randazza's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights ("ECHR") more generally.
It is well established that matters of a purely personal or private nature are unlikely to be considered matters of public interest. Mr Randazza is a private individual and there is no public interest in the publication of false and defamatory statements by you.
In relation to alleged misuse of private information, it may be a defence to argue that there is "no confidence in iniquity" or that there is a public interest in exposing a person's misconduct, particularly where such misconduct involves crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.
There is no prospect of proving any misconduct by Mr Randazza to a standard which would amount to a viable defence of disclosing misconduct in the public interest. In any event, Mr Randazza's case is that even if you could establish the truth of your allegations on the balance of probabilities, that would not amount to an adequate justification for the campaign. There is no prospect whatsoever of you demonstrating that it is reasonable to publish the allegations that Mr Randazza is corrupt, a fascist, a racist and homophobic.
The campaign amounts to an attempt to exact retribution on Mr Randazza rather than any proportionate or necessary exercise of Article 10 rights under the ECHR.
GDPR Claims
Mr Randazza is an Italian citizen and afforded protection of his personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation (the 'tGDPR"). Mr Randazza's image and details relating to his personal life amount to his personal data since •it is data from which he is easily identified.
The images of Mr Randazza have been copied and published by you without his consent alongside your allegations that he is corrupt and guilty of serious misconduct. This is causing Mr Randazza very significant distress as a result. The personal data you publish is in breach of Article 5 of the GDPR because the data is not being processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to Mr Randazza. Instead, the personal data is being processed with the intention of a smear campaign against Mr Randazza, with highly defamatory and false allegations that he is corrupt and guilty of serious misconduct issues, alongside allegations he is a fascist, racist and homophobic. There is no public interest in processing completely false allegations.
In the circumstances, Mr Randazza seeks to enforce the following rights under the GDPR of the processing of the data: the "Right to Erasure" under Article 17 GDPR, Mr Randazza requests that the articles are erased without undue delay according to Article 17.1 (a), (c) and (d), the "Right to object" to the processing under Article 21 GDPR. Mr Randazza objects on the grounds set out above to the continuing processing of his personal data on the Websites.
Relief
Our clients do not wish to pursue a claim against you for an injunction and damages. However, in the egregious circumstances to which you are responsible for the Publications on the Websites, they are determined to prevent the continuation of your campaign, and achieve vindication, and will not hesitate to do so if you do not immediately agree to provide the following relief:
To delete the following URLS complained of in this letter:a. https://fortuneherald.com/press-release/corrupt-attorney-marc-randazzarepresents-dwight-schar-and-bella-collinas-reputation/b. https:(/www.newsanyway.com/2020/09/29/why-the-florida-bar-still-allowsdwight-schars-corrupted-attornev-marc-randazza-to-practice-law/c. https://www.abcmoney.co.uk/2020(10/01/why-state-bar-of-nevada-allowscorrupt-marc-randazza-to-practice-law/
To undertake, in terms to be agreed, not to repeat the false and defamatory statements complained of in this letter or any similar allegations, whether by yourself, your servants or agents or otherwise.
To undertake you will not use the Websites and any others that you are responsible for, to repeat the false and defamatory statements complained of in this letter of claim, or any similar allegations, in relation to our clients.
An undertaking not to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
You will note that our clients do not at this time seek an apology, damages for libel, or the extensive legal costs attributable directly to the defamation and harassment complaint from
you. However, their attitude to these issues will be conditioned by the nature of your response to this letter, and they are prepared to pursue their legal entitlements against you in full if it is not satisfactory.
Should your response to this letter be to continue or escalate the campaign in any way, then that may lead to an escalation in damages. In addition to this, they will press for the initiation of criminal proceedings against you in respect of the PHA, which will clearly have a long-term detrimental impact upon you.
We urge you to take specialist legal advice in relation to this matter and to our clients' claim generally. This is particularly important where you appear, quite wrongly, to believe that the campaign is lawful or justified.
This matter is urgent, and we require a response within 14 days, which is also the period within which you are required to respond pursuant to the Pre-action Protocol for Media and
Communications Claims r3.6 (attached).
We look forward to hearing from you and you can contact us by telephone on 020 7183
4123, by post to the address at the foot of this page or by email to helpline@cohendavis.co.uk
Yours sincerely,
COHEN DAVIS
10/9/2020
Justice
Pre-action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims
Pre-action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims
Pre-action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims
Contents
Title Number
Introduction 1
Aims of the Protocol 2
Pre-action protocols for Media and 3
Communications List causes of action
1 Introduction
1.1 This Pre-Action Protocol was updated after a consultation following the formation of the Media and Communications List in 2017. It now applies to cases within the scope of CPR rule 53.1: all cases involving claims in defamation, misuse of private information, data protection law or harassment by publication, and claims in breach of confidence and malicious falsehood which arise from publication or threatened publication by the print or broadcast media, online, on social media, or in speech.
1.2 This Protocol is intended to encourage exchange of information between parties at an early stage and to provide a clear framework within which parties to a media and communications claim, acting in good faith, can explore the early and appropriate resolution of that claim.
1.3 The courts will treat the standards set out in this Protocol as the normal reasonable approach for parties to a media and communications claim. Therefore, the courts will expect parties to have complied with this Protocol in good time before proceedings are issued. Should a claim proceed to litigation, the extent to which this Protocol has been followed by the parties will assist the court in dealing with liability for costs and making other orders.
1.4 There are important features which distinguish defamation claims and other media and communications cases from other areas of civil litigation, and these must be borne in mind when both applying, and reviewing the application of, the Pre-Action Protocol. In particular, time is frequently 'of the essence' in defamation and other publication claims; the limitation period is (uniquely) only I year in defamation and malicious falsehood cases, and often, a Claimant will be seeking an immediate correction and/or apology as part of the process of restoring his/her reputation.
Litigants in Person
If a party to the claim does not have a legal representative they should still, in so far as reasonably possible, fully comply with this Protocol.
If a party to a claim becomes aware that another party is a litigant in person, they should send a copy of this Protocol to the litigant in person at the earliest opportunity
2 Aims of the Protocol
2.1 The aims of this Protocol are to enable the parties to prospective claims to:
(a) understand and properly identify the issues in dispute and to share information and relevant documents;
(b)make informed decisions as to whether and how to proceed;
(c) try to settle the dispute without proceedings or reduce the issues in dispute;
(d)avoid unnecessary expense and control the costs of resolving the dispute; and
(e) support the efficient management of proceedings where court proceedings cannot be avoided.
Proportionality
2.2 In formulating both the Letter of Claim and Response and in taking any subsequent steps, the parties should act reasonably to keep costs proportionate to the nature and gravity of the case and the stage the complaint has reached.
3 Pre-action protocols for Media and Communications List causes of action
3.1 Letter of Claim
The Claimant should notify the Defendant of his/her claim in writing at the earliest reasonable opportunity.
In respect of all causes of action falling within the Media and Communications List, the Claimant should include the following information:
name of Claimant;
the nature of and basis for the entitlement to the remedies sought by the Claimant;
any facts or matters relevant to England and Wales being the most appropriate forum for the dispute; and
details of any funding arrangement in place.
3.2 Letter of Claim (Defamation, Slander and Malicious Falsehood)
The Letter of Claim should additionally include the following information—
sufficient details to identify the specific publication which contained the statement complained of,
the statement complained of and, if known, the date of publication; where possible, a copy or transcript of the statement complained of should be enclosed and, in the case of slander, where and in what circumstances as far as known the statement complained of was spoken;
the imputation the Claimant contends was conveyed by the statement complained of;
factual inaccuracies or unsupportable comment within the statement complained of; the Claimant should give a sufficient explanation to enable the Defendant to appreciate why the statement is inaccurate or unsupportable;
for defamation claims, how or why the Claimant says that the statement complained of has caused or is likely to cause serious harm for the purposes of section 1 Defamation Act 2013 including, when the Claimant is a body that trades for profit, such details
as are available of the nature and value of the serious financial loss which the Claimant says has been caused or is likely to be caused by publication of the statement complained of,
for slander or malicious falsehood claims, how or why the Claimant says that publication of the statement complained of has caused, or is likely to cause, special damage or pecuniary loss, or why publication of the statement is actionable without proof of actual loss; and, in malicious falsehood claims an outline of the Claimants case with regard to malice.
where relevant, the Letter of Claim should also include—
any facts or matters which make the Claimant identifiable from the statement complained of; and,
details of any special facts relevant to the interpretation of the statement complained of and/or any particular damage caused by the statement complained of
3.3 Letter of Claim (Privacy, Breach of Confidence)
The Letter of Claim should additionally include the following information—
the information or categories of information which is claimed to constitute confidential information or in respect of which the Claimant is said to have a reasonable expectation of privacy;
sufficient details to identify the publication or proposed publication containing the relevant information;
details of the circumstances giving rise to confidentiality or a reasonable expectation of privacy (in breach of confidence or misuse of private information claims respectively);
why the information is claimed to constitute information in respect of which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidential information of a nature that should not be published or continued to be published, including details of any damage or distress suffered or anticipated, where an interim non-disclosure order or final non-disclosure order to restrain publication is sought; and,
in claims for misuse of private information, why it is claimed that the Claimant's right to private and family life outweighs the right to freedom of expression; in respect of confidential information, in so far as known, the extent to which the information is already in the public domain; the nature and any available details of any particular damage caused or likely to be caused by the publication, proposed publication or processing complained of.
When at the time of sending the letter of claim, the Claimant intends to make an application for dispensation from the requirements of CPR PD16 (Statements of Case) with a view to bringing his/her claim anonymously, this should be indicated in the letter of claim, which should also give an indication of the basis upon which any application would be made. Any response from the Defendant should be provided to the Court upon an application.
3.4 Defendant's Response to Letter of Claim
Letter of Claim (Data Protection)
The Letter of Claim should additionally include the following information—
any further information necessary to identify the data subject;
the data controller to which the claim is addressed;
the information or categories of information which is claimed to constitute personal data including, where necessary, the information which is said to constitute sensitive personal data or to fall within a special category of personal data;
sufficient details to identify the relevant processing;
the identification of the duty or duties which are said to have been breached and details of the manner in which they are said to have been breached, including any positive case on behalf of the Claimant;
why the personal data ought not to be processed/further processed, if applicable;
the nature and any available details as to any particular damage caused or likely to be caused by the processing/breach of duty complained of; and
Where representative data protection claim is intended to be brought on behalf of data subjects, the letter of claim should also: set out the nature of the entity which intends to bring the claim and explain how it fulfils the relevant suitability criteria — see Article 80 of the General Data Protection regulation (GDPR); include details of the data
subjects on whose behalf the claim would be brought; and, confirmation that they have mandated the representative body to represent them and receive compensation, where applicable.
3.5 Letter of Claim (Harassment where the course of conduct includes publication)
The Letter of Claim should include the following—
suficient details about the course of conduct which is claimed to constitute harassment, including sufficient details to identify the publication(s) or proposed publication(s) forming part of the course of conduct;
how or why the Claimant says that the course of conduct amounts to harassment, including, if relevant how or why it has caused, or is likely to cause, alarm or distress; and
where relevant, how or why and in what amount the Claimant says that the course of conduct has caused financial loss.
3.6 Defendant's Response to Letter of Claim
The Defendant should provide a full response to the Letter of Claim, as soon as reasonably possible. If the Defendant believes that he/she will be unable to respond within 14 days (or such shorter time limit as specified in the Letter of Claim), then he/she should specify the date by which he/she intends to respond.
3.7 The Response should include the following—
whether or to what extent the Claimant's claim is accepted, whether more information is required or whether it is rejected; if the claim is accepted in whole or in part, the Defendant should indicate which remedies it is willing to offer; if more information is required, then the Defendant should specify precisely what information is needed to enable the claim to be dealt with and why; if the claim is rejected, then the Defendant should explain the reasons why it is rejected, including a sufficient indication of any statutory exemptions or facts on which the Defendant is likely to rely in support of any substantive defence; in a defamation or malicious falsehood claim, the defamatory or false imputation(s) the Defendant contends was conveyed by the statement complained of, if any; and where the Claimant to a proposed action has indicated his/her intention to make an application to bring the claim anonymously, the Defendant should indicate whether the Defendant accepts such an order would be appropriate and give an indication of the basis for the Defendant's position.
3.8 Settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution
Court proceedings should be a last resort. The parties should consider whether some form of alterative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure might enable them to settle their dispute without commencing court proceedings, and if so, endeavour to agree which form to adopt.
Although ADR is not compulsory, the court will expect the parties to have considered ADR. A party's refusal to engage with ADR (including its failure to respond to an invitation to participate in ADR) might be considered unreasonable by the court and could lead to the court ordering that party to pay additional costs.
3.9 Some of the options for resolving disputes without commencing proceedings are—
(a) without prejudice discussions and negotiations between the parties;
(b) mediation — a form of facilitated negotiation assisted by an independent neutral third party;,
(c) early neutral evaluation (ENE) - a third party giving an informed opinion on the dispute (for example, a lawyer experienced in the field of defamation or an individual experienced in the subject matter of the claim); and
(d) reference to a press regulator established to deal with complaints from members of the public about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines or an arbitration scheme operated by such a regulator.
3.10 CPR Part 36 (Offers to Settle) permits claimants and defendants to make offers to settle before and after proceedings have been issued. The parties should consider if it is appropriate to make a Part 36 Offer before proceedings are issued. If such an offer is made, the party making the offer must supply sufficient evidence and/or information to enable the offer to be properly considered.
The defendant may make an offer to settle a defamation action through the offers to amend procedure under sections 2 — 4 of the Defamation Act 1996. This procedure requires the defendant to make an offer to publish an apology or a redaction statement. The defendant may also be required to pay damages and costs to the claimant.
Stocktake
3.11 the procedure set out in this Protocol has not resolved the dispute between the parties, they should undertake a further review of their respective positions. The parties should consider the state of the papers and the evidence in order to see if proceedings can be avoided and, at the least, narrow the issues between them which can assist efficient case management.
3.12 Further reference
The parties may find reference to the following of particular assistance:
CPR Part 53 and Practice Direction: Defamation Claims;
CPR Part 25: Interim Remedies and Security for Costs;
Master of the Rolls' Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders, August 2011 [20121 1 mR 1003, SEN CTS (V'vhite Book, Volume 1, B13-001 onwards);
CPR PD48 paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2: Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 Relating to Civil Litigation Funding and Costs: Transitional Provision and Exceptions — Insolvency-related proceedings and publication and privacy proceedings; and
2013 CPR rule 44.15 and PD44 paragraphs 19.1-19.6: Providing information about funding arrangements (VVhite Book, Volume 1, 44x.15, 44xPD.3); 2013 Practice Direction — Pre-Action Conduct, paragraph 9.3: Information about funding arrangements (2013 mite Book Volume 1 Cl-008); and, 2013 CPR rule 44.3B(1)(c): Limits on recovery under funding arrangements (White Book Volume 1, 44x.3B)."
Google Sites
Report abuse