"The concept of prior restraint, roughly speaking, deals with official restrictions imposed upon speech or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication." Prior Restraint is Unconstitutional. Preliminary Injunctions Suppressing Free Speech without First Adjudication of Free Speech Issues at Hand, are Unconstitutional.

"THE DOCTRINE OF PRIOR RESTRAINT" - First Amendment, Freedom of Expression ...

"The concept of prior restraint, roughly speaking, deals with official restrictions
imposed upon speech or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication.
Prior restraint is thus distinguished from subsequent punishment, which is a penalty
imposed after the communication has been made as a punishment for having made it.
Again speaking generally, a system of prior restraint would prevent communication
from occurring at all; a system of subsequent punishment allows the communication
but imposes a penalty after the event. 

Of course, the deterrent effect of a later penalty may operate to prevent a communication from ever being made. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons, the impact upon freedom of expression may be quite different,
depending upon whether the system of control is designed to block publication in
advance or deter it by subsequent punishment.

In constitutional terms, the doctrine of prior restraint holds that the First Amendment
forbids the Federal Government to impose any system of prior restraint, with
certain limited exceptions, in any area of expression that is within the boundaries of
that Amendment. By incorporating the First Amendment in the Fourteenth
Amendment, the same limitations are applicable to the states.

Several features of the doctrine should be observed at the outset. In the first place,
the doctrine deals with limitations of form rather than of substance. The issue is not
whether the government may impose a particular restriction of substance in an area
of public expression, such as forbidding obscenity in newspapers, but whether it may
do so by a particular method, such as advance screening of newspaper copy. In
other words, restrictions which could be validly imposed when enforced by subsequent
punishment are, nevertheless, forbidden if attempted by prior restraint. 

The major considerations underlying the doctrine of prior restraint, therefore, are matters
of administration, techniques of enforcement, methods of operation, and their effect
upon the basic objectives of the First Amendment.

Moreover, the doctrine of prior restraint is, in some important respects, more
precise in its application than most of the other concepts that have developed out of
the First Amendment. 

It does not require the same degree of judicial balancing that the courts have held to be necessary in the use of the clear and present danger test, the rule against vagueness, the doctrine that a statute must be narrowly drawn, or the various formulae of reasonableness.

Hence, it does not involve the same necessity for the court to pit its judgment on controversial matters of economics, politics, or social theory against that of the legislature. "

"For nearly 130 years after its adoption, the First Amendment received scant attention
from the Supreme Court. Not until World War I brought an avalanche of
prosecutions under the Espionage Act did the Court begin to explore the implications
of the constitutional guarantee for freedom of expression."

Thomas Emerson Doctrine of Restraint




The Doctrine of Prior Restraint (Thomas Emerson)
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3761&context=fss_papers

For Legal Matters in Todays World Regarding this Massively Important Issue, Check Out
http://www.josephrakofsky.com/2013/03/does-portland-oregon-judge-have-legal.html

Manon Rooney Lally Googles "Rakofsky v. the Internet"

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Search Referral:				www.google.com — rakofsky v internet #2
Host Name:				ool-4b63153a.static.optonline.net									Browser:				Firefox 9.0
IP Address:				75.99.21.58 — [Label IP Address]									Operating System:				Win7
Location:				Hewlett, New York, United States									Resolution:				1440x900
Returning Visits:				0									Javascript:				Enabled
Visit Length:				Not Applicable									ISP:				Manon Rooney Lally

Navigation Path

Date	Time	WebPage
		www.google.com — rakofsky v internet #2
6 Mar	07:48:19	www.crystalcox.com/2013/03/scott-h-greenfield-abovethelawcom-elie.html

Pro Se Litigant Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox Pokes a BIT of FUN at the OUTBREAK of Preliminary Injunctions, Sweeping Rapidly, Seemingly Out of Control, through the District of Nevada, yet Granny Goose Alleges these RULINGS are an "extraordinary remedy". Crystal Cox Calls BULLSHIT. ViaView , Inc. Plaintiff v. BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON; KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR; ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L. CHANSON ~ Randazza V. Cox, Who Will be NEXT?

"EXTRAORDINARY" Preliminary Injunction OUTBREAK in the District of Nevada

written upon the Knowledge and Belief of Crystal Cox, Mad Dog Blogger

Judge Gloria Navarro GRANTS Preliminary Injunction to Plaintiff ViaView , Inc. , and says, regarding a list of domain names WANTED by the PLAINTIFF, "shall be immediately locked by the Registrar and/or its successor registrars and transferred to Plaintiff ViaView, Inc" (gee WHERE have I heard that Before?)

Source of Above QUOTE

http://bv.1110.cds.contentcolo.net/uploads/files/TRO_Chanson.pdf

It is not Standard of Practice in the Domain Name Industry for a PLAINTIFF to simply say, hey I want your website down, I want you to Shut up and STOP competing with me so I will SIMPLY sue you, and get a JUDGE to give me the " extraordinary remedy" of "Preliminary Injunction" and just shut you down, FORCEFULLY by Court order, oh and make you pay my attorney fees to do it.

That would mean that anyone at any time can sue who ever they want, and then get a JUDGE like, Judge Gloria Navarro of the District of Nevada, to grant them a "Preliminary Injunction" and WaLa the competition is SHUT DOWN, Gone, Erased, in an instant and before due process of law, before Trademark Rights are Proven and Before First Amendment Adjudication. This is an unlawful, unconstitutional measure to wipe out competing blogs and websites, and I believe an Anti-Trust Violation.

     Do Domain Names Have First Amendment Protection?

Do Free Blogs Such as Blogspot by GOOGLE have First Amendment Protection.

The District of Nevada is Doing this Preliminary Injunction Scheme, in Randazza V. Cox, and and the ViaView case. 

Alleged Co-Conspirators of District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-NJK are also doing this same, alleged "scheme" to just take websites and blogs with no due process, no first amendment Adjudication in Manwin V. Bulgin, (Manwin V. Bulgin, Manwin Licensing International Sarl v. Nicholas Bulgin), 2:2012cv02484 of California Central District Court. Manwin V. Bulgin was filed nearly a year ago, part of the "conspiracy" "scheme" seems to be to simply SHUT the site down and then stall a Judgement or Ruling, all to SIMPLY wipe out the competition, and GIVE their Intellectual Property to the Plaintiff just because they said so.

They are connected and seem to be on a domain name Seizing Spree, using the courts as their private playground and media and stomping on the rights of the intellectual property owners such as, Crystal L. Cox, Eliot Bernstein, Nicholas Bulgin, BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON; KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR;  ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L. CHANSON.

Search Engine Reputation Management Services cost 5,000 to 10,000 a month with Search Engine Reputation Management, SEO Companies, and this is often per key word. GET a BID. Yet Manwin, Randazza, Liberty Media, ViaView, they seem to have a SUPER Power and instead of paying for internet advertising or SEO, they just SUE and get a JUDGE to seize the domain name, blog, or website that competes with them in the search engines, and they have WON with no due process to their MARK aKa "the Defendant".

Manwin, Liberty Media Holdings, Corbin Fisher, and more alleged Co-Conspirators named in the Crystal Cox RICO Filing, are infringing on the iViewit Technology and trying to Suppress the Flow of information on the Blogs of Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, a Media Defendant in Randazza V. Cox and in Obsidian V. Cox. the iViewit Technology infringement is Billions in Liability to Randazza Client Liberty Media Alone, the MOTIVE to shut down the Blogs of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox and Invent, iViewit Founder, Eliot Bernstein is Clear to Anyone who Can READ.

Godaddy and other Domain Name Registrars sell Domain Names with the names of others in them every day, yet the, in conspiracy it seems, the end user fights the legal battle over owning domain names Godaddy SOLD them and Godaddy made "commercial" revenue, "intentionally", "in bad faith", over the sale of the domain name, and of ads on the domain names when parked at Godaddy. yet GODADDY has no Liability, Pro Se Plaintiff in the Crystal Cox RICO Filing, ME, says Different. I Say Godaddy Inc. is part of this RICO and should be accountable to their clients.

                                 Jerry Falwell Lost the Right to JerryFalwell.com
http://www.internetparodies.org/FalwellDecision.pdf
"making "a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark . . . at issue." Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii). The fact that the trademark is used in the domain name does not in and of itself defeat the legitimate noncommercial fair use of the trademark in question.

Bruce Springsteen v. Jeff Burgar and Bruce Springsteen Club, WIPO Case No. D2000-1532 (January 25, 2001). Nor does initial interest confusion affect the legitimate noncommercial fair use of the trademark. See, e.g., Strick Corp. v. Strickland, 162 F. Supp. 2d 372, 377 (E.D. Pa. 2001). The dissenting panelist takes the view that the intended impersonation of another can rarely if ever be fair or legitimate and particularly in circumstances where the Complainant’s name has been taken without adornment and where the purpose behind the impersonation of the person in question is to damage him. In the view of the dissenting panelist the fact that the unsuspecting visitor to the Respondent's web site is immediately disabused is irrelevant. By then the damage has been done. The visitor has been misleadingly diverted, and the Complainant has been damaged.

Complainant argues that the use being made of the name does not fall within the
definition of "parody" However, whether regarded as parody, satire, or critical
commentary, the majority believes that legitimate noncommercial fair use commentary
is involved. Whether the commentary is in good taste, whether it is funny, whether it is
effective, all is beside the point. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. WalMartcanadasucks.com and Kenneth J. Harvey, WIPO Case No. D2000-1104
(November 23, 2000), at 18-19."

Source of Above Quote
http://www.internetparodies.org/FalwellDecision.pdf

More on Sucks Sites and the Manwin V. Buglin Case

http://stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/2013/01/nicholas-bulgin-fight-back-know-your.html

Anna Nicole Smith LOST
http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/220007.htm

We all know that the ABOVE people were and actually still are "household" names. Manwin is NOT, Randazza is NOT, ViaView - anyBodyUpyet, is NOT, yet they have SUPER Powers over the Courts to Simply Seize businesses, blogs, competing web properties, with a simple filing of a law suit and filing for an Unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction, TRO, which they seem to EASILY get, though they are ALLEGED to be an "extraordinary remedy".

Taubman Sucks Won
http://taubmansucks.com/


Glen Beck Domain Name Case 
HE LOST, Randazza was Opposing Counsel
Here is Randazza Letter Regarding Glen Beck Name (yet this same Attorney SUED me and STOLE my Domain Names and BLOGS)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/128343966/Marc-J-Randazza-Responds-to-Glen-Beck-WIPO

More Documents in the Glen Beck Case
http://www.dmlp.org/threats/beck-v-eiland-hall
Randazza Defends SUCKS Sites and talks of Glen Beck Casehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1hGqg360NF4

As does the Book, What would Google Do. Yet Randazza SEIZES the "Sucks" sites of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, his target, victims, aKa Defendant and gets a Judge to GRANT  an Unconstitutional Preliminary Injunction, TRO, and simply STOPS the flow of information, STOPS Competition, and interferes with the Business as well as ruins the reputations of their TARGET, the owners of the sites, blogs, they want DOWN, that are competing with them in the Search Engines. A $350 filing fee is a lot cheaper then a $500 WIPO Fee, and to actually do the work of getting strong in the search engines. These Serial Plaintiffs simply file a lawsuit, Get a Preliminary Injunctions, the Domain Names are transferred to the Plaintiff because the say so, and Game Over. No Rights for the Defendant aKa Target.
               the New York Joseph Rakofsky Case

Rakofsky V. the Internet Case, Same Gang Involved, a Related Case, Looks Like to Me

http://www.dmlp.org/threats/rakofsky-v-internet#description

Rakofsky V. the Internet, Naming 
http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2011-05-11-Rakofsky%20Complaint.pdf

WIPO Decisions WON By Crystal Cox with "Neutral" Panelist(S)

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0675

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0678

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0677

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0679

They ( the Alleged Co-Conspirators) are SEIZING web properties in "conspiracy" and setting precedence to take massive intellectual property and completely bypassing the constitutional rights and rights of due process of those they sue, YOU are NEXT. 

"They" sue these victims partly in Retaliation for beating them in the Search Engines. And partly to STOP the blog author from giving their OPINION, Exercising their Free Speech about them, or exposing their actions, the Plaintiff, or their Client. However, Search Engines ALSO have protected Speech, check out this white paper on the topic.
http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SearchEngineFirstAmendment.pdf

It is not Standard of Practice, or lawful in my opinion, for ANYONE to simply say Hey, your bugging me with your online speech about me or my company, so I want your sites, and then have a JUDGE simply shut the sites down, change servers and transfer domain ownership, without due process of law. Your life's work, money, time, quality of life all in the hands of ONE JUDGE.

If JUDGES can do this then you are all DOOMED and may as well quit online business and marketing right now. If a Judge, such as Judge Gloria Navarro of the District of Nevada, can take your business, your revenue, your online presence, your intellectual property and simply wipe it out for an unspecified amount of time until a case is litigated, then SOMETHING is very wrong, and this needs to be looked at by Special Investigators.

THE Preliminary Injunction in ViaView , Inc. Plaintiff v. BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON; KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR;  ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L. CHANSON and the Preliminary Injunction in Randazza V. Cox, are Unconstitutional, as RANDAZZA himself argued in this case
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/141369776/State-of-Nevada-Case-212-cv-02040-GMN-PAL-in-Connection-to-Irina-Chevaldina-Appellant-Appellate-Case-No-3D12-3189

LOOKS like RANDAZZA Agrees and Preliminary Injunction are "Unconstitutional"

Does the First Amendment Trump Trademark Laws in ViaView , Inc. Plaintiff v. BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON; KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR;  ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L. CHANSON?

Does the Plaintiff actually have a Trademark in ViaView , Inc. Plaintiff v. BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON; KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR;  ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L. CHANSON?

It does not SEEM to matter, an Unconstitutional, "EXTRAORDINARY" Preliminary Injunction will SIMPLY be the JUDGE and JURY and Due Process, Constitutional Rights, First Amendment Adjudication is OF No Concern, as Long as you have the RIGHT Judge and the RIGHT Attorney.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS Back.

Upon my Knowledge and belief and as a "Domainer" and Internet Marker for over a Decade, I allege, that Judge Gloria Navarro SHOULD not have deemed that blogs, domains, intellectual property of BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON; KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR;  ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L. CHANSON or of Defendant Crystal Cox in Randazza V. Cox, were ONLY worth $100 each.

Judge Gloria Navarro is not a domain name, blog, internet marketing expert or appraisor and had no lawful or constitutional right to wipe out my work, my business simply because the Plaintiff told her too, and the Plaintiff in Randazza v. Cox is also the Plaintiffs Attorney in ViaView , Inc. Plaintiff v. BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON; KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR;  ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L. CHANSON.

The Plaintiff's Attorney in ViaView , Inc. Plaintiff v. BLUE MIST MEDIA is a Domain Name Expert and knows full well that those "brands" domain are worth more than $100. Judge Gloria Navarro SHOULD know, as she, upon my knowledge and belief, was part of the Litigation over the Righthaven Domain Name being FORCED into Receivership. The same receiver that ALLEGED Co-Conspirator David S. Aman used to come after Crystal L. Cox and Eliot Bernstein in the Obsidian V. Cox Case, Lara Pearson.

The Righthaven Domain Name Auction and Attorney Fee Dispute

"A judge has authorized a receiver to auction the intellectual property of Las Vegas-based Righthaven LLC, the newspaper copyright infringement lawsuit filer.T he auction is aimed at raising money to cover part of Righthaven’s $63,720 debt to a man who defeated Righthaven in court. "

"The court-appointed receiver in the Hoehn case, Lara Pearson of the law firm Rimon P.C., in the meantime, arranged for Righthaven’s website domain name to be auctioned beginning today by SnapNames.com.

With a minimum initial required bid of $100, by midmorning Monday the auction had attracted two bids that pushed the price up to $300. The bidding will continue through Jan. 6 at 12:15 p.m. PST."

"One of Hoehn’s attorneys, Marc Randazza, on Monday noted the irony of Righthaven’s lawsuits in which it demanded alleged copyright infringers turn their website domain names over to Righthaven and the company now seeing its domain name auctioned.

“Righthaven went after hundreds of defendants in copyright cases. Often, the defendants were innocent and engaged in fair use. In all cases where a court has been asked, they found that Righthaven had no right to bring the suit in the first place. In all of their cases, Righthaven asked the court to award them not only money, but the defendant’s domain name,” Randazza noted in a blog post. “After losing a case to my client, Wayne Hoehn, Righthaven is at least $63,000 in debt to him. They refuse to pay. Now their domain name is up for auction to the highest bidder.”

Source of The Above Quote
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/dec/26/auction-righthaven-website-domain-name-under-way/


"Righthaven Wrangles Over Legal Fees; Hit with New Charges, 'Just a Gang of Con Artists'"

New developments occurred this week in the ongoing dispute of attorney's fees in the case against former defendant Michael Leon. On July 5, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro's ordered Righthaven to pay attorney Malcolm DeVoy and Randazza Legal Group $3,815 for representing Leon on a pro bono basis. Righthaven allegedly balked at the order, so on Saturday the Randazza firm asked for aninjunction against Righthaven, freezing $3,815 of its assets to ensure payment. On Tuesday, Righthaven responded by asking Navarro to temporarily stay judgment of the fee award.

Source of Above QUOTE
http://www.righthavenvictims.com/2011/07/righthaven-wrangles-over-legal-fees-hit.html

I Call This, ARE you FUCKING Kidding ME?

Randazza Legal Group offers Pro Bono Services,
then files a MOTION to be PAID, 
SHOCKER.
Judge Gloria Navarro Says "GRANTED"
EVEN BIGGER SHOCKER. 

"Attorney J. Malcolm DeVoy IV was retained by Defendant Leon for the April 20, 2011hearing. Mr. DeVoy is an attorney for the Randazza Legal group and rendered his services toDefendant Leon on a pro bono basis. Mr. DeVoy was able to secure Mr. Leon’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Mr. DeVoy now presents the current motion for attorney’s fees and costs for his services in securing the dismissal. "

"Plaintiff opposes any attorney’s fees being awarded to Mr. DeVoy or Randazza LegalGroup because it was Plaintiff counsel’s understanding that any award of attorney’s fees would  be directed to a charitable organization since Mr. DeVoy was representing Defendant Leon on a pro bono basis."

"The Court finds that it would be appropriate to award attorney’s fees to
the lawfirm in light of the pro bono representation of Defendant Leon.
(denying attorney’s fees would discourage pro bono representation).

Source of Quote
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59404506/Ordered-to-Pay-Attorney-s-Fees-Righthaven-v-Michael-Leon

So, of course, in light of "Pro Bono" representation, a JUDGE would GRANT the ATTORNEY to be PAID by the party they REPRESENTED Pro BONO, Right? Makes Perfect Sense... NOT !! See, if the ATTORNEY does not get paid, they may not want to DO Pro BONO work anymore... WHAT? 

RED ALERT Folks, what a RACKET, Randazza Legal Group OFFERS Pro Bono then FORCES you to Pay Them? WOWZER.. 

I Say, DO Not Accept Pro Bono Services from Riddler Randazza LEGAL Lies Group, Cuz that Actually Means they will get their BUDDY Judge Gloria Navarro to MAKE you Pay THEM after you agree to PRO BONO.. . Another Randazza Legal Group RACKET Subsidized by COURT RULINGS of Judge Gloria Navarro...

Pro Bono is defined as, "for the public good; is a Latin phrase for professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment or at a reduced fee" BUT not in the Fantasy Land, of the Magic Kingdom of Randazza RULES.

Case No.: 2:10-cv-01672-GMN-LRL, Document 52
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59404506/Ordered-to-Pay-Attorney-s-Fees-Righthaven-v-Michael-Leon

Interesting, Rabid ROTTEN Randazza was to be Pro Bono for me too, but he wanted $5000 of course to Start.. that Pro Bono work.. (things that make you say hmmm....)

Why does Judge Gloria Navarro SUPPORT Randazza Legal Group in 

whatever they Say they WANT? And Call It FACT?

Regardless of the Evidence an Innocent Defendant,
Such as Me Gives the Court, in which she rules over?

Quite a "Racket", I would Say, In My Pro Se Opinion.

Let's Rant a Bit on This Injunctive Relief Epidemic that seems to be spreading randazza  rapidly through the District of Nevada, though it is ALLEGED to be a RARE and "extraordinary remedy".

"“Injunctive relief [is] an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22.  Above all, a temporary restraining order “should be restricted to serving [its] underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)."

Source of Quote
http://bv.1110.cds.contentcolo.net/uploads/files/TRO_Chanson.pdf

Judge Gloria Navarro sure seems to LOVE this One, she used this "EXTRAORDINARY" Granny Goose case law on Pro Se Litigant Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox as well.

If it is going to Cost the End User Hundreds of THOUSANDS of DOLLARS and Forced Attorney Fees to own a domain name with an "Alleged" Trademark In it, then why the HELL does the Registrar SELLING these Domain Names have NO LIABILITY?

If you Look at Judge Gloria Navarro GRANTING this "extraordinary remedy" for a  Preliminary Injunction in ViaView , Inc. Plaintiff v. BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON; KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR;  ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L. CHANSON.
http://bv.1110.cds.contentcolo.net/uploads/files/TRO_Chanson.pdf

Then You Look at Judge Gloria Navarro GRANTING this "extraordinary remedy" for a Preliminary Injunction in Randazza V. Cox
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/146014867/District-of-Nevada-Docket-Entry-14-Regarding-TRO-Preliminary-Injunction

You BEGIN to wonder just how "EXTRAORDINARY" Preliminary Injunctions REALLY are in the District of Nevada Court of Judge Gloria Navarro ? they Sure look like ORDINARY, Every Day Activities to Me, and they ALMOST look word for word, as if a Cookie Cutter Stamp. So how "EXTRAORDINARY" can they be?

MAYBE the Plaintiff / Plaintiff's ATTORNEY submitted a Template.. oh I am just Kidding of Course.. Geez that could never happen..  .. However, WOW.. "extraordinary remedy", sorry But I have to Call BULLSHIT on that One. 

How in the WORLD can Judge Gloria Navarro SEIZE Domain Names, cause irreparable damage and Transfer domain names to a Plaintiff in a motion that clearly states the Defendant has not yet responded or had due process of law, and in more then one case as you see here, WORD FOR WORD.
http://bv.1110.cds.contentcolo.net/uploads/files/TRO_Chanson.pdf

AND to the Benefit of the SAME Law Firm, the Same Lawyer. This is WHY I allege conspiracy, this is why I have tried so hard to remove Judge Gloria Navarro from my case.
And of COURSE been BLOCKED Every Single Time, thus far.

Ok a Bit More Pokin' Fun.. 

Come on Now, it's Just a Parody.. 

The KING of Abuse on the Courts. 

Pot Calls Kettle Black. Nevada Righthaven Scandal

Randazza Righthaven SuperHERO?  NOT..

I Believe, in my OPINION, that Rotten Rabid Riddler Randazza
played BOTH Sides of the RIGHTHAVEN Lawsuits,

just my opinion, surely I am blowin' it out my Ass on that one, right?

"Las Vegas attorney Marc John Randazza likes a good fight — particularly if it involves free speech and the First Amendment.  He works with the porn industry prosecuting copyright infringement cases and has represented opponents of the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s copyright enforcer Righthaven LLC. Randazza was among the first to criticize Righthaven and its CEO with charges of incompetence and abuse of the courts."

Source

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/sep/24/righthaven-foe-says-cases-are-key-free-speech/

Hey Guess Which Judge Made Sure Which Attorney Got Hundreds of
Thousands in Legal Fees? Betcha Can't Guess..

Do your Homework Folks, the LAWS Only Apply to
the THUG Attorneys who Rule the Courts, in my HUMBLE,
Pro Se OPINION. 

For More Information Regarding
District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-NJK
Captain Crystal Cox vs. Rabid Rotten Randazza

http://www.crystalcox.com/2013/02/pro-se-litigant-investigative-blogger.html

For More Information Regarding 

District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL

                  Riddler Randazza V. Courageous Cox
http://www.josephrakofsky.com/2013/02/crystal-l-cox-nevada-lawsuit-pro-se.html

More Information on the iViewit Technology Theft

http://www.iviewit.tv/#Evidence

iViewit Technology SEC Complaint
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

iViewit RICO Complaint
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf


NOTE: There SHALL be No Parody, No Mocking, NO First Amendment Exercising, No Gripe Sites, No Review Sites, and not a WORD Spoken of the Riddler, Marc J. Rabid Randazza of Randazza Evil Group. Or thou shall have their First Amendment Privileges Smited.