Let's Look at the RULING and Marc Randazza's
Big Preliminary Injunction VICTORY
A Bit from Marc Randazza's Victory APPEALING an alleged unconstitutional preliminary injunction against his client. Even though Marc Randazza himself used an unconstitutional preliminary injunction against me, Crystal Cox and stole my search engine ranking, my intellectual property, my blogs and then proceeded to violate my privacy rights, constitutional rights, civil rights and to harass and defame me for years.
""Irina Chevaldina appeals an order granting a preliminary injunction to “enjoin tortious interference, stalking, trespass and defamatory blogs” entered in favor of Raanan Katz and the other named appellees, plaintiffs in the circuit court. We vacate the order and injunction. "
Source
http://3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf
" In this appeal, we review a temporary injunction in the circuit court action
which determined that “the Defendants have blogged extensively about the
Plaintiff and many of these blogs are arguably defamatory. Although ultimately a
defamation trial will be held, this Court ORDERS the Defendants not to enter
defamatory blogs in the future.”
The court determined that:
Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of ultimately prevailing on the
merits of their claims, and there is a substantial threat of irreparable
injury to the Plaintiffs if injunctive relief is not granted, that the
threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighs whatever damage the
injunction would cause the Defendants, and that the injunction would
not be adverse to the public interest."
Source
3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf
In Randazza v. Cox there was no "substantial likelihood of ultimately prevailing on the
merits of their claims" and there certainly was no First Amendment Adjudication BEFORE Plaintiff Marc Randazza seized Blogger Crystal Cox's intellectual property.
See the Link Below that shot down all of Plaintiff Randazza's unsupported causes of action
in a Denial of a Summary Judgement in Randazza v. Cox
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf
The Ruling Goes on to Say;
"A temporary injunction “should be granted only sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proved facts entitling it to relief.” Liberty Fin. Mortg. Corp. v. Clampitt, 667 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)."
3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf
Yet attorney, Plaintiff Marc Randazza proved NO FACTS in Randazza v. Cox and Bernstein, yet he filed gag orders, injunctions, stole blogs, shut down sites, and even redirected my blogs to a post on his blog defaming and lying about me. Why do the courts protect Marc Randazza when he is clearly violating law and the constitutional rights of his victims?
.jpg)
"In order to establish the right to a temporary injunction the moving party must show: the likelihood of irreparable harm; the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; the substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs the possible harm to the respondent; and the granting of the temporary injunction will not disserve the public interest. E.g., City of Miami Beach v. Kuoni Destination Mgmt., Inc., 81 So. 3d 530, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
We review the temporary injunction for an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., 2 So. 3d 1100, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA
A. Injunction Against Tortious Interference and Defamatory Blogs Injunctive relief is not available to prohibit the making of defamatory or libelous statements. See, e.g., Vrasic v. Leibel, 106 So. 3d 485, 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
A temporary injunction directed to speech is a classic example of prior restraint on speech triggering First Amendment concerns. Id.
There is, however, a limited exception to the general rule where the defamatory words are made in the furtherance of the commission of another intentional tort. E.g., Murtagh v. Hurley, 40 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Zimmerman v. D.C.A. at Welleby, Inc., 505 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). "
Source of Ruling
Yet Plaintiff Marc Randazza was easily GRANTED an unconstitutional preliminary injunction against Blogger Crystal Cox and iViewit inventor Eliot Bernstein, why?
Well connected First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza FLAT OUT lied about me, perjured himself over and over and Judge Gloria Navarro took him at his word and NO PROOF and stole my search engine ranking, my intellectual property, my work product and caused me irreparable harm to myself, my business and my relationships.
Here is the Unconstitutional TRO Filing (Randazza Filing)
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.2.0.pdf
Added Flat out Lies to TRO (Randazza Filing)
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.6.0.pdf
REPLY with more Lies and Attacks regarding the TRO (Randazza Filing)
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.12.0.pdf
Another REPLY (Randazza Filing)
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.28.0.pdf
ORDER by Judge Gloria Navarro GRANTING Unconstitutional TRO / Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Defendant Blogger Crystal Cox in favor of Marc Randazza.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.14.0.pdf
Another ORDER by Judge Gloria Navarro GRANTING Unconstitutional TRO / Motion for Preliminary Injunction Just in case the FIRST ONE was not heard.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.41.0.pdf
.jpg)
My, Defendant Crystal Cox's Response and Objection to Unconstitutional TRO / Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendant Crystal Cox's Objection
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.29.0.pdf
Defendant Crystal Cox's REPLY to Response
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.30.0.pdf
Randazza et al v. Cox et al
District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040
Cause; 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Nature Of Suit: 840 Trademark
1) VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL CYBERPIRACY PROTECTIONS
– 15 U.S.C. § 8131
2) CYBERSQUATTING - 15 U.S.C. §
1125(d)
3) RIGHT OF PUBLICITY – NRS
597.810
4) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF
PUBLICITY
5) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF
INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION
6) CIVIL CONSPIRACY
Other Preliminary Injunctions Judge Gloria Navarro Gave Randazza Legal Group
even though they are allegedly "Rare" and Unconstitutional
"ViaView, Inc. v. Chanson et al"
"Court Description: ORDER Granting 6 EX PARTE MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by ViaView, Inc. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have until 12/7/2012 to file Response to 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Plaintiff shall file reply by 12/21/2021. Motion Hearing set for 1/2/2013 02:30 PM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/30/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)"
Source
In SOME Cases, a Preliminary Injunction is Unconstitutional and Marc Randazza DEFENDS that position. Yet he used an unconstitutional Injunction to steal my work product, my intellectual property, my search engine ranking and my online content.
Preliminary Injunction are Unconstitutional Depending on Which Side your Attorney is On.
Opening Brief in the Irina Chevaldina Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Attorney Marc Randazza.
In the District of Nevada, Judge Gloria Navarro's court, the Most Important thing is the Attorneys Pay Check, and the Law, the Constitutional Rights of Defendants, Due Process seems to be Irrelevant.
Judge Gloria Navarro seems to CLEARLY favors Randazza Legal Group as far as I see it.
These attorneys sue whoever they want, they get their attorney fees, intellectual property, fines paid to them and what ever they want in the MAGICAL Land La La Lawless Land of Judge Gloria Navarro of District of Nevada.
More Research Links on that Topic
Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited
"The Plaintiff has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims sufficient for the Court to issue a limited Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement and inducement of copyright infringement. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)
To show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must show that: (1) it owns the copyright to which its infringement claims relate; and, (2) Defendants violated one of the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the works. See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991);
Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2010); Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir 1977); Educational Testing Servs. v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533, 538 (3d Cir. 1977). These two factors have been clearly established by the Plaintiff."
To show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must show that: (1) it owns the copyright to which its infringement claims relate; and, (2) Defendants violated one of the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the works. See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991);
Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2010); Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir 1977); Educational Testing Servs. v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533, 538 (3d Cir. 1977). These two factors have been clearly established by the Plaintiff."
Source of Above Judge Gloria Navarro RULING Favoring the SAME Plaintiff
Marc Randazza does not and did NOT have "substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim". Yet he was favored over his TARGET / his Victims.
Why is no FBI Agent, Dept. Of Justice Agent, the Nevada Attorney General, or the U.S. Attorney General Looking at all this?
It sure seems to VIOLATE the Rights of the Targets, the Defendants in some sort of pattern of "shakedown", in my Opinion
More Research on the Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited and this Same Attorney, who sure is GOOD at Showing Alleged "merits" of winning, Before a Defendant has any First Amendment Adjudication or Right to Due Process.
Love this Part "Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings LLC. Motion ripe 6/20/2012."
I get threats of death, violence and Judge Gloria Navarro IGNORES my Real Emergency. Yet Gloria Navarro allows Randazza Legal Group to abuse the process and get emergency protective orders and Injunctions.
Frozen Accounts, Preliminary Injunctions, FORCED Attorney Fees and whatever Randazza Legal Group wants they get, WHY?
"Section 505 of the Copyright Act grants district courts discretion to award “
a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs"
Randazza Legal Group sues their TARGET, and the Judge Forces their VICTIM to PAY the ATTORNEYS outrageous Fee's. And if you Don't Judge Gloria Navarro will Freeze your Accounts. Pattern and History, I THINK SO.. in my NON-Attorney OPINION.
Don't Forget Liberty Media Holdings allegedly is infringing on the iViewit Technology and many companies owned, at least in part by Liberty Media Holdings are named in iViewit Technology. Randazza SUED Eliot Bernstein and got a Preliminary Injunction against him as well, with NO First Amendment Adjudication.
The Full Hypocritical Filing of Marc Randazza Regarding the
Unconstitutional actions of Preliminary Injunctions.
Page 8 of above;
"This appeal Seeks to cure an unlawful prior restraint on the Appellant’s First Amendment rights, improperly imposed by the lower court. On November 19, 2012, the circuit court enjoined Appellant from writing, “defamatory” blogs 'in the future, despite expressly making “no findings of facts as to actual ‘violations of law by the [Appellants], except that [Appellants] have blogged extensively about the Appellee] and many of these blogs are arguably defamatory.” (RÃ/14)
The circuit court made this decision Without following the mandates of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. However, even if it had, the injunction is patently unconstitutional."
WOW, "the injunction is patently unconstitutional", it is "unlawful prior restraint", EXCEPT for when Marc Randazza uses it against a Blogger he wants to SUPPRESS the SPEECH of.
Page 10
"Months and months of litigation, thousands of dollars, and thousands of pages of documents later, RKA sought a clearly unconstitutional remedy - an injunction against alleged defamation prior to any court determination that the speech at issue was even legally capable of defamatory meaning, much less Whether it was actually defamatory, privileged, or otherwise protected by the First Amendment. (R Vl-6)
The resulting lnjunction Order was so over-broad and subject to abuse, that the RKA even sought an order for contempt based upon Chevaldina doing no more than reporting the existence of the Order itself."
All that money to seek a "clearly unconstitutional remedy"? And Marc Randazza defends the opposite position he took to constitutionally violate Crystal Cox an Eliot Bernstein?
Full Hypocritical Motion Linked Below
Attorney Marc Randazza sought a "clearly unconstitutional remedy , "injunction ..prior to any court determination" from Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein, even though that "speech" was protected under the First Amendment and with NO First Amendment Adjudication.
Randazza Legal Group, Marc Randazza stole massive online content, work product, intellectual property and used the lawsuit to violate my privacy rights, harass me, defame me, lie about me, harass me and to post private emails, get my bank account and wire records, harass and bully my church, threaten my ex's, get private proprietary business information from customers and clients and to put me and my sources under constant attack, threats, stalking, harassing, bullying and defaming for over 2 years now and counting. He did this as an "officer of the court". Clearly abusing his power.
.jpg)
Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group are
CLEARLY acting outside of the Law and are Violating
the rights of citizens every single day.
And they are using Judges, Attorneys,
Investigators, Officers of the Court, and Thugs to do it,
in my Opinion.
EXPOSE Randazza Legal Group.
I say Indict Marc Randazza, J. Malcom DeVoy,
Michael Whiteacre, Ronald Green, Sean Thomas,
and others I ALLEGE are acting in Civil and Criminal
Conspiracy with them every single day.
Some More Fun on Preliminary Injunctions and Marc Randazza
http://crystalcoxmedia.blogspot.de/2013/03/pro-se-litigant-investigative-blogger.html
Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group had NO CASE against Crystal Cox or Eliot Bernstein, as is easily seen in the Denial of a Summary Judgement which CLEARLY shoots down every cause of action of the Plaintiff as a matter of LAW.
More on that at the Link Below
http://ethicscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/12/randazza-v-cox-lanham-act-trademark.html
Here is the RULING that Denied the Summary Judgement
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf
Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group had NO CASE against Crystal Cox or Eliot Bernstein, as is easily seen in the Denial of a Summary Judgement which CLEARLY shoots down every cause of action of the Plaintiff as a matter of LAW.
More on that at the Link Below
http://ethicscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/12/randazza-v-cox-lanham-act-trademark.html
Here is the RULING that Denied the Summary Judgement
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Randazza V. Cox Lanham Act, Trademark Infringement, District of Nevada; Plaintiff Marc Randazza HAS no Case against Blogger Crystal Cox and NEVER Did.
Randazza et al v. Cox et al
District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040
Cause; 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Nature Of Suit: 840 Trademark
Below is a Video of me, Crystal Cox discussing
the Original Complaint and Reading some of it.
Below is a Video of me, Crystal Cox discussing
the Original Complaint and Reading some of it.
Here is a Link to the Original Complaint attorney Marc Randazza filed against Blogger Crystal Cox to shut down and steal her gripe sites exercising her Free Speech Rights over him.
Below is a DENIAL of a Summary Judgement in Which
Shoots Down ALL of Marc Randazza, Plaintiff's ALLEGED "cause of action".
Shoots Down ALL of Marc Randazza, Plaintiff's ALLEGED "cause of action".
Below is a Video of Me Reading the Denial of Randazza's Summary
Here is the Entire Docket
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.docket.html
Randazza et al v. Cox et al
District of Nevada 2:12-cv-02040
Cause; 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Nature Of Suit: 840 Trademark
1) VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL
CYBERPIRACY PROTECTIONS
– 15 U.S.C. § 8131
2) CYBERSQUATTING - 15 U.S.C. §
1125(d)
3) RIGHT OF PUBLICITY – NRS
597.810
4) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF
PUBLICITY
5) COMMON LAW RIGHT OF
INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION
6) CIVIL CONSPIRACY
.gif)
