Wednesday, December 10, 2014

First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group SAYS that Preliminary Injunctions are unconstitutional, they are unlawful prior restraint, they are "patently unconstitutional", they are clearly an "unconstitutional remedy". Especially if there was no prior First Amendment Adjudication.

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?


"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
3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf


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


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."

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.


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
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, November 28, 2014

Summary Judgement DENIAL clearly shows that Marc Randazza has NO Case against Crystal Cox nor did he EVER. He flat out lied to the courts to STEAL massive online content and search engine ranking, and got away with it, 2 years and counting. Crystal Cox ALLEGES that Marc Randazza controls the courts. She asks WHY?

2 years into Marc Randazza's scamoid attack against a blogger he doesn't like nor approve of so he lied over and over to big media, NPR, Forbes and to multiple legal bloggers and of course his Circle Jerk Groupies so they would ruin the life of that blogger for their Hero, Riddler Randazza, the world's most hypocritical attorney.

Marc Randazza LOVES Free Speech. Oh I mean he loves to make money or get his big fat EGO stroked from defending the speech of those he supports such as a Guide on how to be a Pedophile, or say a domain name such as GlenBeckRapedandMurderedaYoungGirlin1990.com, or say defending Rush Limbaugh to call Sandra Fluke a slut,

Yet Marc Randazza painted blogger Crystal Cox out to be an evil monster for buying a domain name and never using it, oh and calling his slut wife a slut, my bad.

All simply because he wanted to teach me a lesson and make an enemy of me. But you see, I work for the HOLY SPIRIT and I am here to bring light so Mr. Darkness YOU LOSE. You have been exposed and even if your circle jerk groupies kill me, beat me, take out my knee caps, come to my town, jail me and follow through with all those threats, oh well, it's in God's hands now, the Truth is free flowing as a river to the sea of your inevitable RICO. (i like that River RICO, along the banks of Pattern and History Galore.)

Randazza v. Blogger Crystal Cox Case; Authentification of Blogs "Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, and Transcripts of YouTube Videos - Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence - Periodicals: Authentication vs. Hearsay"

This is a VERY Important Ruling in the Randazza v. Cox case regarding Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, Transcripts of Videos, and Authentication of Email Evidence. This is the ONLY Judge in about 15 plus of my cases that actual ruled on these issues as a matter of law and not simply as a matter of not wanting to offend or piss off the porn industry or the Randazza Legal Groupies.
Crystal Cox Video on Judicial Order showing that Marc Randazza SUED Crystal Cox
with no adjudicated fact, no basis in law, he really did not have a trademark, there was no confusion, there was no commercialism by Crystal Cox and well it's clear to see Randazza sued Crystal Cox as an act of REVENGE, Intimidation and Harassment.



"Authentication of Blogs, YouTube Videos, and Transcripts of YouTube Videos — Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence — Periodicals: Authentication vs. Hearsay

Randazza v. Cox, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49762 (D. Nev. April 10, 2014):
This cybersquatting case arises out of the alleged targeting of Plaintiffs Marc Randazza, his wife Jennifer, and their young daughter Natalia, by Defendant Crystal Cox, a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger." The Randazzas allege that Cox and Defendant Eliot Bernstein have engaged in an online harassment campaign to extort them by registering dozens of internet domain names that incorporate the Randazzas' names and then demanding they agree to purchase Cox's "reputation management" services to remove this allegedly defamatory material from the internet and rehabilitate their cyber reputations. Cox maintains that this lawsuit was instituted to harass her and stifle her First Amendment freedoms  [*2] of speech and expression.
The Randazza Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their claims against Cox. But as one of those claims is legally untenable, and genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the remainder, their motion is denied. Cox has pending her own motion for summary judgment on her original "Counter-Complaint," which has since been stricken and supplanted (in part) by a new amended counterclaim. ***
In November 2012, the Randazzas sued Cox and Bernstein alleging violations of individual cyberpiracy protections for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 8131,  [*3] cybersquatting for various registered websites under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), their right of publicity under NRS 597.810, their common law right of publicity, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. The claims were based on allegations that Cox and Bernstein registered several domain names containing Plaintiffs' names, that Cox's blog posts contained objectionable characterizations of the Plaintiffs, and that these acts were designed to extort and harass the Randazzas and capitalize on and damage the goodwill Marc Randazza claims he built up in his own name as a prominent First Amendment attorney.
Bernstein has not appeared or answered the allegations, but Cox has. She contends that she registered the domain names to control public relations information when she thought Marc Randazza would represent her in another lawsuit. Cox also strongly objects to Plaintiffs' characterization of her motivation and actions as "extortion."
The tortured history of this case is rife with procedural maneuvering by both sides. All parties have disrupted the Court's timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the orderly administration of justice by sandbagging the docket  [*4] with multiple impertinent, legally unsupported, and frivolous filings. The instant motions were not spared from these tactics. Despite Mr. Randazza's self-proclaimed prominence as a First Amendment attorney and being represented by independent counsel, Plaintiffs have failed to authenticate more than half of their proffered exhibits in support of their motion; and half of the authenticated ones are immaterial to this motion. Equally confounding is that pro seCox has submitted a 255-page nonsensical summary judgment motion and a 183-page opposition to Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, neither of which includes any relevant legal authority or complies with this Court's rules of procedure and evidence. In short, all parties have fallen far short of sustaining their initial summary judgment burdens and both motions are denied.
A. Authentication of Evidence
The first step in analyzing these motions is to determine what evidence the Court may consider in evaluating whether the parties met their respective burdens. In Orr v. Bank of America, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "made it clear that 'unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for summary judgment.'"6 To authenticate  [*5] a document, the proponent must offer "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.'"7 As the summary judgment procedure is the pretrial functional equivalent of a directed-verdict motion, it requires consideration of the same caliber of evidence that would be admitted at trial;8 thus, it is insufficient for a litigant to merely attach a document to a summary judgment motion or opposition without affirmatively demonstrating its authenticity.
6   Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 533 (9th Cir. 2011) (citingOrr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 733 (9th Cir. 2002).
7   Las Vegas Sands, 632 F.3d at 532-33 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)).
8   Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (citing Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 745 n.11 (1983)).
***
1. Periodicals
Plaintiffs offer at Exhibit B an article from Forbes Magazine. Printed material "purporting to be a newspaper or periodical" is self-authenticating.11 Thus, this article is self-authenticating. Its contents, however, are hearsay not subject to any exception. Accordingly, the periodical is not admissible for summary judgment purposes.
11   Fed. R. Evid. 902(6).
2. Websites
Few courts have considered how a website print-out or blog posting may be authenticated. Those that have considered the issue have found "website print-outs [were] sufficiently authenticated where the proponent declared that they were true and correct copies of pages on the  [*8] internet and the print-outs included their webpage URL address and the dates printed."12
12   Haines v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 1:10-cv-01763-SKO, 2012 WL 1143648 *7 (E.D. Cal. April 4, 2012).
The websites contained in Exhibits E, K, Q, R, S, and T have been properly authenticated under this standard because Plaintiff Marc Randazza has attested that they are true and correct copies and the print-outs include the webpage URL address and the dates the websites were printed. However, Plaintiffs have not authenticated any of the purported website contents in Exhibits D, G, M, O, and P. Although Mr. Randazza has attested that these exhibits are true and correct copies and the print-outs include the webpage URL address, absent are the dates the webpages were printed. Without the print dates, these website printouts have not been properly authenticated, and the Court will not consider them.
3. Letters, Emails, and Text Messages
A document may be authenticated by personal knowledge "by a witness who wrote it, signed it, used it, or saw others do so."14 Although circumstantial evidence--like an email's context, email address, or previous  [*9] correspondence between the parties--may help to authenticate an email,15 the most direct method of authentication is a statement from its author or an individual who saw the author compose and send the email.16
14   Orr, 285 F.3d at 774 n.8 (citing references omitted).
15   United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2000).
16   United States v. Fluker, 698 F.3d 988, 999 (7th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiffs have authenticated the letter sent from Mr. Randazza to Defendant Bernstein presented in Exhibit A by Randazza's affidavit stating that he wrote and signed the letter. Similarly, Mr. Randazza's curriculum vitae and the "About" page of his blog attached as Exhibits I and J have been properly authenticated because Mr. Randazza is a person with personal knowledge and he wrote his curriculum vitae and the "About" page of his own blog. Plaintiffs have also authenticated via circumstantial evidence the emails between Cox and Mr. Randazza contained in Exhibit H because the email contains sufficient indicia of authenticity by context, the email addresses, and previous correspondence between the parties.
But Plaintiffs have not authenticated the purported emails between Cox and Dylan Energy CEO  [*10] Martin Cain contained in Exhibit C. Although Plaintiffs attempt to authenticate Exhibit C via circumstantial evidence, there is a gap in the email chain. Mjr@randazza.com purportedly received the forwarded email from matt.baer@dylanenergy.com; savvybroker@ yahoo.com (the email associated with Cox) sent the email to dylanchpmc@verizon.net. Therefore, it is unclear how the person in control of the email address matt.baer@dylanenergy.com came to be in possession of an email originally addressed to dylanchpmc@verizon.net. Without some explanation of the gap in this email chain by someone with personal knowledge, there is insufficient circumstantial indicia of authenticity for the Court to consider this document.
Plaintiffs have not authenticated the text message screen shot in Exhibit A either. The screen shot purporting to be a text-message exchange between Messrs. Randazza and Bernstein has not been authenticated because it does not have circumstantial indicia of authenticity. It is unclear which phone numbers sent or received the messages or to whom those phone numbers belonged when the screen shot was taken, or who took the screen shot. Without this type of supporting evidence, the  [*11] Court cannot consider the text message in Exhibit A.
***
5. YouTube Video
Exhibit N is a transcript of a YouTube video. The single court having addressed how to authenticate a Youtube.com video, albeit in a criminal context, found that videos from the online video network are self-authenticating as a certified domestic record of a regular conducted activity if their proponent satisfies the requirements of the business-records hearsay exception.20 To meet this exception, the evidence must be accompanied by "a certification of their custodian or other qualified person that satisfies three requirements: (A) that the records were 'made at or near the time by--or from information transmitted by--someone with knowledge'; (B) that they were 'kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business'; and (C) that 'making the record was a regular practice of that activity.'"21
20   United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 132-33 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding the YouTube  [*13] video in question was self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902 business records).
21   Id. at 133.
The transcript of the YouTube video contained in Exhibit N has not been properly authenticated. Although Mr. Randazza has attested that it is a true and correct copy of a transcript of a video posted on YouTube.com, he has not established that he is a person with personal knowledge who prepared the transcript, nor has he established when it was prepared and that it is complete and accurate. 
To the extent that the YouTube.com video itself is offered as evidence, it similarly has not been authenticated because Plaintiffs have not proffered the certificate of YouTube's custodian or other qualified person verifying that the page had been maintained as a business record in the course of regularly conducted business activities. Without this certification, the video has not been properly authenticated and cannot be considered.
With these evidentiary limitations, the Court now turns to the merits of Plaintiffs' summary judgment arguments."

Source
 http://www.jha.com/us/blog/?blogID=2777

Link to Motion Denying Summary Judgement
http://ia701205.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330/gov.uscourts.nvd.91330.200.0.pdf

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, November 27, 2014

"We had every right to publish information of public concern as established in Obsidian v Cox regarding Free Speech. "

"On November 4th, 2014, OpUniteBlue.com was suspended by GoDaddy due to a DMCA (copyright infringement) complaint. The complaint was made by Jeffrey Joy, the owner of a private investigation business called Vested Protection Security. Mr Joy is also the husband of Zapem aka Michele aka Joanne Joy.
OpUniteBlue published an article on Mr. Joy and Vested Protection Systems, alleging unethical and possibly illegal activities. 
We had every right to publish information of public concern 
as established in Obsidian v Cox regarding Free Speech. 

Though our hosting contract with GoDaddy was due to expire November 27th, we felt the DMCA complaint was filed in retaliation so we chose challenge Mr. Joy’s copyright claims.
We won.
Though OpUniteBlue.com is back online we’re not done with Vested Protection Services. There are boundaries to what a private investigation business is allowed to do and Vested Protection has been stepping outside those boundaries for years.
Here’s the DMCA complaint Mr. Joy sent.

Subject: Re: DMCA TakeDown Notice
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:16:09 -0400
To:copyrightclaims@godaddy.com
<vestedprotection@gmail.com>
I am the copyright owner of the content being infringed at:
1. Pictures of our office that were removed from our business website located atwww.vestedprotection.com.
2. Copies of the emails illegally hacked from a private email account and published on this website in violation of federal and state law.
This letter is official notification under the provisions of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (�DMCA�) to effect removal of the above-reported infringement. I request that you immediately remove the specified posting and prevent the infringer, who is identified by its web address, from posting the infringing photograph to your servers in the future. Please be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to �expeditiously remove or disable access to� the infringing photograph upon receiving this notice. Noncompliance may result in a loss of immunity for liability under the DMCA.
I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of here is not authorized by me, the copyright holder, or the law.
The information provided here is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear under penalty of perjury that I am the copyright holder.
Please send me at the address noted below a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jeffrey J. Joy
Vested Protection Systems, LLC
206 Westfield Avenue
Clark, New Jersey 07066

Mr Joy claimed that pictures of his office were taken from his business site. There is only one pictue and it’s actually a screen capture taken from Google maps. His claim is not true.
Mr Joy also claims Zapem’s emails were illegally hacked. Once again, this isn’t true. It’s been reported on several blogs that the emails were released by a Breitbart staff member. There are audio recordings of the email’s author, Michele, complaining about the emails being released but she doesn’t mention anything about hacking."

Source and Full Article

http://www.opuniteblue.com/2014/11/vindication-opuniteblue-com-is-back-online/
Posted by at No comments:

A "STUNNINGLY ROBUST" Protection of Free Speech.

"I take issue with Gajda’s interpretation of much of the case law cited in The First Amendment Bubble. She reports, for example that a federal court “decided in 2011 that a blogger’s posts involving a bankruptcy trustee . . . were not of public concern because there was no evidence that the public had paid any attention to the private company’s collapse.” Obsidian Finance v. Cox is a complex case, but she fails to note that the Ninth Circuit eventually found that the blog posts did address “a matter of public concern.”
To my eyes, the ruling is a 
stunningly robust protection of speech. 


Elsewhere, she argues that “some judges” are suggesting that “accidents are not newsworthy”; her evidence is DeSirey v. Unique Vacations—a case about a dune buggy accident in which American press freedoms were not remotely involved. The defendants wanted a trial in St. Lucia, where the accident occurred. They argued that tourism was of “public interest” to the island resort’s press. The judge held that “this relatively straightforward tort suit does not automatically become of broad public interest in St. Lucia merely because it involves the tourism industry.”

Read the Whole Story At:
http://www.cjr.org/review/how_the_first_amendment_applie.php?page=all&print=true#sthash.MEVDRQqf.dpuf

Plus Folks Please note that a Bankruptcy Court Proceeding is a Public Issue, as are 1031 Exchange Companies, DIG DEEP.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)