Saturday, March 16, 2013

Vivid Entertainment,, Steven Hirsch wants your kids ADDICTED to Porn as Soon as Possible. Vivid Entertainment KNOWS that the quickest way to your kids is through their Superheros, their "Icons". So Vivid Entertainment, Steven Hirsch through the eyes of Axel Braun has created an army of "Vivid Super Heros". is in the search engines for your children's search terms, and there it is Porn, easily accessible to your Children. STOP Vivid Entertainment from Exploiting your Children.

Vivid Super Heros look just like the regular Superhero Icons of Marvel Comics and DC Comics. The only difference is they get naked and have sex, aKa Porn. 

The movies are very digitally detailed, thanks to the STOLEN iViewit VideoTechnology and it would be hard for a child to tell the difference really, in many scenes.

Vivid EntertainmentSteven Hirsch, Vivid SuperXXHeroes, along with Porn Parody Director Axel Braun and his Parody Films have made porn a mainstream part of your child, teens life, by getting into the search engines for their favorite action figures / super heros and by mixing PORN under the name Porn Parody with Marvel Comics, DC Comics, and Superheros.

Guess who PROFITS from Vivid EntertainmentSteven Hirsch's Vivid Super Heros, Porn Parody Movies, targeting your children?

Where there is money and kids, there is Definitely DISNEY Right?

How about Videos, Movies, Money and Kids, well then there is ALWAYS Warner Bros. Right?

Warner Bros.,Time Warner Inc., DC Comics, Liberty Media Holdings (John C. Malone and Sirius Radio), Disney, and Marvel Comics ARE making money for ever second that these Porn Parodies are viewed. The Motto seems to be Get Em' Addicted to Porn at a Very Young Age.

Warner Bros.,Time Warner Inc. KNOW that the video technology used in their online media, and in these Porn Parodies of Vivid Entertainment, is STOLEN from a company called iViewit Technology and an Inventor Named Eliot Bernstein.  Yet they FAIL to Disclose this to Shareholder, year after year.

What is important is Vivid Everywhere. according to Vivid CEO Steven Hirsch, And Fox Business News is promoting this. Folks VIVID XXX Parody Films is directed at children and teens, and it is PORN.
Here is the Fox News Video.

Vivid Entertainment, Steven Hirsch, Says WHATS Important is VIVID Everywhere, oh and NO Condoms is VERY IMPORTANT. As Steven Hirsch,, VividTV, Vivid Touch, fought hard and with lots of money to keep those condoms off.

a Bit more on Porn Joker Steven Hirsch and the whole NO On Condoms Fight

VIVID Everywhere is VERY Important says, Steven Hirsch of Vivid Entertainment.
So VividTV, Vivid Radio, and Video Touch for your Web Browser, to Get Off Quick.

Thank Larry Flynt for making Porn a Legitimate Industry, says the Fox News Reporter?  Does this woman know how to Read? Free Speech is Important, PORN Parody and Superhero PORN Is NOT.

Vivid Licenses out its BRAND to Vodka, Gentleman's Club's, Condoms, Vivid Radio, Snowboards, T-Shirts, VividTV, Vivid on Demand, and all of it USING Parody, using trademarks and copyrights of movies and action figures you and your children know well, aKa "trusted brands", yet it is PORN, and Warner Bros.,Time Warner Inc., DC Comics, Liberty Media Holdings (John C. Malone and Sirius Radio), Disney, and Marvel Comics must be making money for ever second that these Vivid Parody Movies are viewed.

Vivid Radio will be Satelite Radio, gee wonder if Sirius Radio / Liberty Media Holdings will make some more PORN Money from that one. 

Commercially Profiting from major trademark's, copyrights and brands and paying no Royalty or Licensing Fee? How can that be, they must be paying a fee, right? And Vivid Licensing re-licenses? Porn Attorneys such as the Riddler, (Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group) would be suing companies such as Vivid Entertainment for infringement if they had no license, right? 

Riddler Randazza wants us to believe that Marc J. Randazza is a household name, in his SLAPP suit against Blogger Crystal Cox, Randazza V. Cox, and that he has rights to his alleged brand, yet Superman, Spider-man, the Hulk, Batman and other Superhero Icons who really are a household name are somehow not under copyright or trademark laws?

Naaa, you know that Warner Bros.,Time Warner Inc., DC Comics, Liberty Media Holdings (John C. Malone and Sirius Radio), Disney, and Marvel Comics ARE making money for ever second that these Porn Parodies are viewed. YES Superheros having Sex, and who is this marketed to? Children and Teens Right? I mean, come on, how many ADULT actually are sexually aroused by watching Superheros have Sex?

If Porn is pirated by the little guys, Liberty Media Holdings hires copyright TROLL attorneys Marc J. Randazza, J. Malcom DeVoy, Ronald D. Green of Randazza Legal Group and Jordan Rushie of Mulvihill & Rushie LLC to go after alleged copyrights of those who download Porn movies from their sites. Law Firms such as Randazza Legal Group and Mulvihill & Rushie LLC are down right aggressive and dangerous in these legal cases, where they act outside of the law and behave in a manner that I, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox say, is down right Criminal Endangerment.

Yet, Judges such as District of Nevada's Gloria Navarro, SEEM to aid and abet these porn industry attorney thugs who really are gang stalking and internet mobbing to intimidate those they are in legal case with in order to pressure a settlement, upon my knowledge and belief, and to SILENCE Porn Industry Insiders, blowing the whistle on them.  Yet Mulvihill & Rushie Law Firm and Randazza Legal Group Support Manwin in doing this same thing, pirating porn, because Manwin is a Bully, a Mogul.   AND to "BIG" to Fail.

The Ultimate in Porn Piracy Irony is

 the FACT that Companies such as Vivid Entertainment, Liberty Media Holdings, Corbin Fisher, New Frontier Media, Manwin, Digital Playground, Brazzers, Reality Kings, Adam & Eve, Hustler and New Frontier Media PROFIT from the iViewit Technology's Video Coding Technology and the INVENTORS never got rights to their invention nor profited. Yet Liberty Media Holdings via Marc J. Randazza, J. Malcom DeVoy, Ronald D. Green of Randazza Legal Group and Jordan Rushie of Mulvihill & Rushie LLC seems to be suing someone ALL the TIME for copyright infringement, piracy, stealing their content, that they don't actually own the licensing from iViewit to the Technology their videos us.  Yet we have this FOX Business News Video talking about Manwin and the Mega-Millions made from Manwin's Porn Piracy and this seems to be Legal? Talk about Hypocrisy.

Liberty Media Holdings and Manwin Do not even have the licensing right to the video technology yet they SUE others over infringement constantly?

The Fox Business News video talks of BIG money made from Manwin by allegedly stealing videos and then profiting from advertising. YET a JUDGE gave Manwin an unconstitutional, unlawful preliminary injunction to steal the domain name from Nicholas Bulgin in Manwin Licensing International Sarl v. Nicholas Bulgin.

Here is the Fox News Video

Manwin Controls Playboy's Online Properties Right? Why is Manwin seemingly above the Law?

So how does Steven Hirsch's Vivid Entertainment Porn Parody get away with OBVIOUS Copyright Infringement or Disney and Warner Bros. profiting from PORN directed at teens and young adults?'s Disclaimer on Superman vs. Spider Man XXX; "a Porn Parody is a a Parody Movie. This movie is not sponsored, endorsed by, or affiliated with any entity owning the rights to the characters parodied. Specifically this movie is not sponsored by, endorsed by or affiliated with DC Comics, Warner Comunications Inc., E.C. Publication Inc., or Marvel Characters Inc."

Sidenote: Why is a Trademark and simply stolen by Porn Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, through a Preliminary Injunction granted by Judge Gloria Misogynist Navarro? ( a Parody)

So Does Vivid Entertainment Steven Hirsch pay a licensing fee for Superman, Batman, Spiderman, the Joker, Pee Wee Herman, Supergirl, the Avengers, the Incredible Hulk, Star Wars?

So if Vivid Entertainment Porn Parody is not sponsored, endorsed by, or affiliated with any entity owning the rights to the characters parodied,  Superman vs. Spider Man XXX specifically in this example, and therefore Vivid Entertainment Porn Parody is SPECIFICALLY not sponsored by, endorsed by or affiliated with DC Comics, Warner Comunications Inc., E.C. Publication Inc., or Marvel Characters Inc., then is there a licensing fee by Warner Bros., Disney who owns Marvel Comics, Time Warner Inc. who owns DC Comics ? What does Michael Eisner of Disney think of all this?

How Can Superman vs Spider-Man NOT be 

affiliated with SUPERMAN and Spider-MAN?

Vivid Entertainment makes big money from Porn Parody, using Warner Bros.,Time Warner Inc., DC Comics, Liberty Media, Disney, Marvel Comics copyright owned Superhero Icons, and yet Liberty Media Holding part owner of Time Warner hires thug attorneys such as Marc J. Randazza, J. Malcom Devoy, Ronald D. Green of Randazza Legal Group AND Jordan Rushie of Mulvihill & Rushie LLC to go after alleged copyrights of the "little guy"? Really? Something Fishy There.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox says Porn Parody is abusing the courts, corrupting our youth, making a mockery of children's idles, infringing on iViewit Technology and profiting from schemes with big media companies such as Warner Bros., Time Warner Inc., DC Comics, Liberty Media, Disney, Marvel Comics, and yes John C. Malone of Liberty Media and Jeff Sewell of Time Warner Inc. KNOW.


So who owns the Copyright to SUPERMAN, and Must Profit from 

Superman vs. Spider Man XXX?  

Well Time Warner Inc. (TWX) has a copyright on Superman, Porn Mogul Liberty Media Holdings John C. Malone owns part of Time Warner Inc. TWC, Time Warner Inc. is using STOLEN Technology on their Videos.  Even thought Time Warner Inc. TWC had contracts and NDA's with the Inventors. (See Bottom of Post for Lot's More Details).

Recently the Heirs to the creator Superman were in a legal scuffle with Time Warner, DC Comics, Warner Bros. Regarding the Superman Copyright.

Time Warner Inc. (TWX) WON Rights to Superman

"If it’s proven there is a valid contract that can be enforced, Larson would immediately get a $20 million payment in exchange for her father’s share in some of the earliest Superman stories, Time Warner lawyer Dan Petrocelli said during arguments before the appeals court in November."

"An heir to one of Superman’s creators lost a court ruling to Time Warner Inc. (TWX) in her bid to reclaim the rights to the film and comic book hero.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco today said all the elements necessary for formation of a binding agreement were present in a 2001 letter from Laura Siegel Larson’s lawyer to Time Warner’s DC Comics unit. "

 U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright - Time Warner lawyer Dan Petrocelli

Warner Bros. has Committed Massive Shareholder Fraud over iViewit,
yet, WOW, wins the Rights to Superman and Royalties Axel Braun's Parody Porn? 

"Warner Bros. Wins ‘Superman’ Copyright Case Against Joe Shuster’s Heirs"

So it sure seems safe to say that anyone using SUPERMAN in a movie, a parody, or say PORN, would have to pay a royalty, a licensing fee to Time Warner Right, maybe even to Columbia Pictures as well and BIG Bucks for Mr. John C. Malone. Parody Porn KING.

Oh and that all connects to SONY right, and good ol' John Calkins formerly of Warner Bros., who was, I believe, at McKinsey and Company and is connected to John Malone in a "few" ways.

"An heir to one of Superman’s creators lost a court ruling to Time Warner Inc. (TWX) in her bid to reclaim the rights to the film and comic book hero. The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco today said all the elements necessary for formation of a binding agreement were present in a 2001 letter from Laura Siegel Larson’s lawyer to Time Warner’s DC Comics unit. The court reversed a 2008 finding by a lower-court judge in favor of Larson, whose father, Jerome, conjured the superhero with Joseph Shuster in the 1930s."

"The three-judge panel returned the case to U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II in Los Angeles with instructions to reconsider his earlier findings."


What is the Real Role of Judge Otis D. Wright and the Porn Industry, is he Pro Porn or against. I mean love the Prenda Law smack down, however, something seems fishy.

Does DC Comics and Warner Bros., Time Warner Inc. and Liberty Media Holdings have to pay the Siegel heirs for Superman PORN Parody? There is probably more money made over the long run by, Vivid Entertainment from SUPERMAN then the actual superman movies.

A new Superman film is scheduled be released by Warner Bros. on June 14, 2013, guess more Porn Parody will come after that.

Porn Rules the Economy and the earlier Your kids, You, interested in Porn, the more money the Porn Companies Make.

Marc J. Randazza, Ronald D. Green of Randazza Legal Group SUES Eliot Bernstein iViewit Technology Inventor and Blogger Crystal Cox for sites such as,, and other "Parody" sites, see those INFRINGE on Marc Randazza's Imaginary Trademark.  Yet Marc Randazza Defends Liberty Media as they infringe on the iViewit Technology and SUE those they lure into their sites, their PORN. And now that Marc Randazza has stolen my Parody Sites about him, he has set a dangerous precedence for the Big Boys like Steven Hirshch and Vivid Entertainment,

Let's Talk Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF
and Vivid Entertainment is linked from the Homepage of  EFF obviously Supports the Porn Industry being Free Speech Rights and ALL. Yet in the case of Crystal Cox, me, an Investigative Blogger SUED by a First Amendment Attorney (Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group) in what is obviously a Chill Speech Threat, Free Speech Threat, SLAPP Lawsuit, Randazza v. Cox, EFF ignores the case ENTIRELY. EFF Loves Marc Randazza and once filed a Support Amicus Brief for the Crystal Cox Case. So why Ignore Marc Randazza V. Crystal Cox and the damage to Free Speech being done?

The Facts, Laws, and Constitution is clear, so why is EFF standing back and letting Marc J. Randazza SUPPRESS Free Speech and Violate the fights of a Blogger they momentarily supported? Does EFF think I am guilt of Extortion, as Marc Randazza Defames About, then does that mean the First Amendment Does not apply to me?

Hmmm.. I think EFF is simply standing with their school yard buddy / bully Marc Randazza, and standing by while he ruins a bloggers life, endangers her and her sources and threatens free speech with his unconstitutional motions, preliminary injunctions and behavior in Marc Randazza V. Crystal Cox .

EFF Amicus Brief in Support of Crystal Cox

So who at  Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF support porn, profits from porn and why does  Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF stand with Porn Attorney Marc Randazza over the rights of an Independent Blogger, a Victim of Marc Randazza, a Citizen Journalist and a woman that is about to set a precedence that will HELP / Support / Stand for ALL that  Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF is suppose to be about?

EFF Board of Directors

Jonathan Zittrain
Brad Templeton
Pamela Samuelson
Brewster Kahle
John Gilmore
David Farber
Lorrie Faith Cranor
John Buckman
Brian Behlendorf
John Perry Barlow - Co-Founder of EFF
David Sobel
Matt Zimmerman

EFF Advisory Board

Andrew Bridges
Ryan Calo
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
James Gosling
Joseph Gratz
Jim Griffin
David Hayes
Bernt Hugenholtz
Mitch Kapor
Mark Lemley
Joe McNamee
Eben Moglen
Tom Moore
Deirdre Mulligan
Craig Newmark Craig Newmark is the founder of,
Michael Page
Abigail Phillips
Bruce Schneier
Barbara Simons
Daniel J. Solove
Michael Traynor
Jim Tyre
Richard R. Wiebe
Ethan Zuckerman

Source of Above Information

Porn Industry Whistle Blower News

If you don't want your children giving out information to these data mining Porn Parody companies, such as Vivid Entertainment who is after your kids, you can always get "BeNetSafe" from Brad Weber, Formerly of New Frontier Media ( a Major Porn Media Company). Just kidding, (Sarcasm, Parody).

I say that Brad Weber still makes money from the porn industry and that his software has the potential to gather data for the Porn Companies, in the name of protecting your kids. I, say the only way to protect your kids is to actually be in their life and explain to them how things of this world real work. Including a spiritual guidance of some sort, and the facts of life in the modern Internet World.  I would not trust companies such as Bradley Weber's "BeNetSafe", especially with his background. More about who is Brad Weber at Link Below.

More Regarding New Frontier Media

Check Out the Parody PORN site, Warn your Children before they find it on their own.  Trust NO Software to Parent your Children.

Liberty Media Holding NAMED as a Defendant in a MAJOR RICO / Racketeering Case out of the District of Nevada and Does Not Respond.

Rich Baer, Liberty Media Corporation General Counsel,KNOWS full well of the SCANDAL caused by Liberty Media Attorney Marc J. Randazza, J. Malcom DeVoy, Ronald Green and Jordan Rushie. Rich Baer, Liberty Media Corporation KNOWS of a District of Nevada Lawsuit naming John C. Malone and Liberty Media, yet Rich Baer sits and waits, on the wrong side of justice and certainly the wrong side of the moral compass.

Here is District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF Defamation, Harassment, RICO, Racketeering, Anti-Trust and more.. Lawsuit filed by Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

Warner Bros., AOL, Time Warner Inc. had Agreements with iViewit

Warner Bros. Signed Agreements with iViewit Inventors

Warner Bros. igned and Violated Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements.
Keep in mind that Philip Falcone's company Lightsquared's General Counsel was formerly the Time Warner Inc. General Counsel, and KNOWS of massive shareholder fraud at Time Warner which he FAILED to Disclose.

More Regarding Curtis Lu, then Time Warner Inc. General Counsel and Former Fannie Mae General Counsel.
Eliot Bernstein Conversation with Time Warner Inc. General Counsel Curtis Lu.

More On iViewit, Time Warner, Warner Bros. and Shareholder Fraud and Deceiit

John Calkins, Warner Bros., iViewit

Doug Chey of HP, Formerly of SONY

iViewit Documents

Links to More on the Iviewit - Warner Bros., Time Warner Inc., Jeffrey Bewkes, Curtis Lu and AOL Connection.
SEC Complaint
iViewit Website
My Blog on the Iviewit Stolen Patent
David Colter Emails, John Caulkins Emails, Chuck Dages, and Alan Bell
Warner Bros. Posts on my Iviewit Blog

Links from Iviewit Web Page about Warner Bros.

Vivid Entertainment Steven Alan Hirsch Fought hard to try and stop a BAN on Porn Stars wearing condoms, kind of sick isn't it.  Manwin put in big money to the FIGHT to STOP a Ban on Condoms in L.A. Porn too. These "Big Boys" of Porn willsoon be moving out of Porn Valley, to avoid the Condom Ban.

Marc J. Randazza and the Randazza Legal GROUP Porn SCUM Attorneys WANT Porn to Move to Las Vegas and cozy up to him and his Judges.

Manwin Fights to STOP Condom Ban

Manwin Funded by Wall Street Investors

More about Manwin ( Also Note Manwin is Manseth, Fabian Thylmann)

Steven Hirsch Research Links Research Links (Owned and Operated by Jovita Corporation Limited) - DNC Holdings

Jovita Corporation Limited ~ a Shell Company?
Wonder if Reverse Shell Company Specialist Ari Bass / Michael Whiteacre helped on this one.

Vivid Servers
 Georgia, Marietta, United States

Jovita Corporation Limited
Susan Mary Hollyman - Director

"Jovita Corporation Limited is an Active, non trading business incorporated in England & Wales on 14th September 2011.  Their business activity is recorded as Dormant Company.  Jovita Corporation Limited is run by 1 current members. 1 shareholders own the total shares within the company. It is not part of a group.  The company has not yet filed accounts.  Jovita Corporation Limited's risk score was amended on 23/07/2012."


Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes 
(Buddies with John C. Malone, Liberty Media Holdings)

Axel Braun, Will Ryder,Jovita Corporation Limited, Steven Hirsch, Vivid Entertainment LLC, Disney, Time Warner Inc, Liberty Holdings Media, Warner Bros., Jeffrey Bewkes, and more make money from using SUPERMAN in Porn Parody and who gets paid for the licensing of the "Trademark", "Copyright" Superman? Well it makes sense that Liberty Media Holdings, John C. Malone gets paid as he owns part of Time Warner Inc., who had contracts with iViewit Technology that they did not HONOR. Time to Set things Right.

More Coming Soon on all parts of this post.
Have a Tip? or

Time to Expose the "Joker" Steven Hirsch, and the Riddler of Gotham, Supervillian Rabid Riddler Randazza AND  Superheros are Archangel Eliot Bernstein ( Batman ), Angel Alexandra Mayers  (Cat Woman), and Captain Crystal Cox (aKa Superman / Priestess Combo) are just the Superheros for the Job.  ~ Stay Tuned for the next Parody of Corruption by Corruption Comedian, Crazy Crystal Cox, the Mad Dog Blogger of Anti-Corruption Media EXPOSING Evil.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Manwin Enterprises is involved in Gang Stalking and More. Wall Street Meets the Porn Industry. Manwin and Goldman Sachs. Jason Colodne and Jason Beckman Colbeck Capital Source.

Manwin Enterprises is involved in Gang Stalking and More. Wall Street Meets the Porn Industry. Manwin and Goldman Sachs. Manwin Received 167 Million in Financing From Colbeck Capital Source. Stealing Porn and Monetizing It?

Colbeck Capital Source Funding Manwin Porn Pirating. 

Charlie Gasparino, Fox Business news on the pirating of porn, and No crackdown of Copyright in Porn?  Check out this Video, Wall Street inevitably invests in Porn. PORN Rules the Economy.

Also check out Major RICO, Racketeering, Defamation, Hate Crime, Harassment Allegations NAMING Manwin, by Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF

For more on the Topic of the First Amendment and Investigative Bloggers as it relates to the Crystal Cox Case, Now on Appeal at the Ninth Circuit

For more on the Very Important issues of the Crystal Cox Case, and ENDING the Monopoly Big Media has on Free Speech Once and For All, Check Out

Porn Industry Whistle Blower News

Colbeck Capital Source Research Links

"Colbeck Capital Management, LLP is an investment manager focusing on credit opportunities including distressed debt, strategic lending and other fundamental, value based and event driven investments. 

Colbeck was formed by Jason Colodne and Jason Beckman, who previously worked together sourcing and investing in distressed credit at Goldman Sachs. Colbeck built an institutional investing platform with a robust, proprietary infrastructure and has partnered with the best-in-class service providers. 

Colbeck is currently comprised of a team of six including four investment professionals who have worked together at Goldman Sachs, Soros and/or graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, Wharton and a Chief Operating and Financial Officer."

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

"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)

For Legal Matters in Todays World Regarding this Massively Important Issue, Check Out

Manon Rooney Lally Googles "Rakofsky v. the Internet"

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Search Referral:
Host Name:ool-4b63153a.static.optonline.netBrowser:Firefox 9.0
IP Address: — [Label IP Address]Operating System:Win7
Location:Hewlett, New York, United StatesResolution:1440x900
Returning Visits:0Javascript:Enabled
Visit Length:Not ApplicableISP:Manon Rooney Lally

Navigation Path

6 Mar07:48:19

Friday, March 1, 2013

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

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
"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. and Kenneth J. Harvey, WIPO Case No. D2000-1104
(November 23, 2000), at 18-19."

Source of Above Quote

More on Sucks Sites and the Manwin V. Buglin Case

Anna Nicole Smith LOST

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

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)

More Documents in the Glen Beck Case

Randazza Defends SUCKS Sites and talks of Glen Beck Case

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

Rakofsky V. the Internet, Naming

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

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.

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

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

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

"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

I Call This, ARE you FUCKING Kidding ME?

Randazza Legal Group offers Pro Bono Services,
then files a MOTION to be PAID, 

Judge Gloria Navarro Says "GRANTED"

"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

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

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

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.

Then You Look at Judge Gloria Navarro GRANTING this "extraordinary remedy" for a Preliminary Injunction in Randazza V. Cox

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.

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."


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,

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

For More Information Regarding 
District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
                  Riddler Randazza V. Courageous Cox

More Information on the iViewit Technology Theft

iViewit Technology SEC Complaint

iViewit RICO Complaint

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.