Public Notice: You have No Legal Rights in the District of Nevada,
if you are Sued there, you may want to Try for a Change of Venue.
Judge Gloria Navarro ACCEPTS what this One Attorney Says as FACT, over and Over and Defendants have No RIGHTS, the TRUTH, and actual Documented Facts are Irrelevant and Stricken from the Record.
Pattern and History Judge Gloria Navarro Connections
Research Regarding our Courts, District of Nevada
Public Information. Do your Homework, there is NO Justice,
no Due Process, NO First Amendment Rights in the District of Nevada
for those who Are the Targets of the Puppet Master.
"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
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv01657/90093/10
Even Similiar Wording as the Preliminary Injunction Magic in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
But See in SOME Cases, a Preliminary Injunction is Unconstitutional
Preliminary Injunction are Unconstitutional Depending on Which Side your Attorney is On.
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
ORDER Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction
in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142332117/Exhibit-TRO-A-Letter-From-Ron-Green-Ltr-to-Cox-encl-TRO-Order
District of Nevada Docket Entry 14 Regarding TRO, Preliminary Injunctionhttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/146014867/District-of-Nevada-Docket-Entry-14-Regarding-TRO-Preliminary-Injunction
Docket Entry 41
District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Judge Gloria M. Navarro
Ruling Granting Preliminary Injunction to Plaintiff.
The Strategy to IGNORE Complaints only Works for the Puppet Master
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111231/01111117248/randazza-files-contempt-court-against-righthaven.shtml
In the District of Nevada, the Most Important thing is the Attorneys Pay Check, and the Law, the Constitutional Rights of Defendants, Due Process.. well that's Just Irrelevant...
Judge Gloria Navarro is THIS Nevada Attorneys SuperHERO.. it's all about the ATTORNEY making money and making a mockery of the courts on the Taxpayers Dime.. Suing Whoever they want.. then getting their attorney fees, intellectual property, fines paid to them and what ever they want in the MAGICALLY Land of the District of Nevada.. Wheee.. Living is Good if your the RIGHT Law Firm in the Fairy Prince Land of MONEY and Make Believe Called District of Nevada.
Judge Gloria Navarro Gives Some More Magic..
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/jul/09/attorneys-seek-fee-injunction-against-righthaven/
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/jul/06/righthaven-ordered-pay-defendants-legal-fees/
Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited
Research Links Regarding Ronald D. Green, Greenberg Traurig, Judge Navarro and More.
"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 Plaintiffhttp://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120621_0003126.DNV.htm/qx
So this SAME Plaintiff ALWAYS seems to show "substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim"? Really? 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. Maybe authorities will take a look when I file my Complaints. Who knows, but someday, somehow, the TRUTH will Come Out, I Hope.
Some 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.
https://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/nevada-district-court/98475/liberty-media-holdings-llc-v-ff-magnat-limited-et-al/summary/
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, talk about a racket... Las Vegas, the Land of Lawlessness, INDEED..
Frozen Accounts, Preliminary Injunctions, FORCED Attorney Fees? WOW, sure SEEMS like quite a racket to me, IN MY OPINION.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105188141/Liberty-Media-Holdings-v-FF-Magnat"Section 505 of the Copyright Act grants district courts discretion to award “
a reasonableattorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs" Don't ya just LOVE IT, they sue their MARK, and the Judge Forces the MARK aKa Defendant to PAY the ATTORNEYS outrageous Fee's. And if you Don't SHE 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
One named defendant that worked for iVeiwt and was named in a
District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Counter Complaint now stricken, actually accepted service of Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox's Complaint, and this acceptance never made it to the Docket, why? Also this defendant spoke of conversations with Plaintiff and that the Complaint was close to closing and would be stricken, as if it was ALL pre-planned.. one day the TRUTH will Come Out, even if the Plaintiff in
District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Kills me, or his buddies do as threatened.
Lot's more coming Soon.. Be it the Nevada Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, the Department of Justice, the FBI, The SEC, or just the Internet Readers... somewhere, somehow the TRUTH will Stand where the Puppet Master has Firmly Placed the Evil Lie.. it's in God's Hands Now..
.. I am pretty sure it is illegal to IGNORE Counter Defendants accepting Service.. and Conspiring with a Judge ...
It will all come out Eventually.. all the LAWS Violated in
District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL will come out when the Great Spirit Says so..
