Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Preliminary Injunctions Denying Freedom of Speech and First Amendment Rights BEFORE adjudicating the First Amendment protection relevant to the speech at issue are unlawful and unconstitutional.
The Preliminary Injunction in this Case against
Defendant Crystal Cox and Defendant Eliot Bernstein is Unconstitutional.
"An impermissible prior restraint against Defendant Crystal Cox and Defendant Eliot Bernstein is unconstitutional. An impermissible prior restraint against Defendant Crystal Cox is impermissible when it issued a preliminary injunction against future speech, and seized intellection property, content, blogs and domain names of Defendant Crystal Cox.
If a court issues an injunction prior to adjudicating the First Amendment Protection of the speech at issue, the injunction cannot pass constitutional muster.
This court denied Defendant Crystal Cox Due Process in expressly skipping the essential step of adjudicating the First Amendment protections to the speech at issue.
This court denied Defendant Crystal Cox Due Process in failing to make any findings of fact or ruling of law, much less review of the blog articles and the First Amendment.
A Judicial Order that prevents free speech from occurring is unlawful. (Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law; Principles and Policies 918 (2002) (“The Clearest definition of prior restraint is.. a judicial order that prevents speech from occurring:).
Prior Restraints are “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights.” Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stewart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). There is a “deep-seated American hostility to prior restraint” Id at 589 (Brennan, J. concurring).
Injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened damage is heavily disfavored because it interferes with the First Amendment and amounts to censorship prior to a judicial determination of the lawlessness of speech. See Moore v. City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, 41 So. 2d 865, 872 (Fla. 1949). “The special vice of prior restraint,” the Supreme Court held, “is that communication will be suppressed... before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment”. Pittsburgh Press Co v. Pittsburg Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 390 (1973). Also se Fort Wayn Books Inc. v Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 66 (1989); M.I.C., Ltd v Bedford Township, 463 U.S. 1341, 11343 (1983.)
In this case, the Nevada Court has skipped the step of adjudicating the First Amendment protection relevant to the speech at issue. Prior Restraints are Unconstitutional.
Also see Post-Neweek Stations Orlando, Inc. v. Guetzlo.
“RKA sought extraordinary relief in the form of prior restraint to enjoin .. . This relief is not recognized in this State, nor anywhere else in the Country. In addition to ignoring the First Amendment Rights and almost a century’s worth of common law, the .. court ignored virtually all procedural requirements for the issue of a preliminary injunction.” Page 5 Paragraph ii of Opening Brief Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Irina Chevaldina Appellant vs. R.K./FI Management Inc.;et.al., Appellees. Attorney for Appellant.."
Freedom of Speech, Preliminary Injunction, Orders Granted, Orders Denied, Docket Report, Case Filings, Case Exhibits, Defendant Eliot Bernstein, Defendant Crystal Cox, First Amendment Rights, Chilling Free Speech, Pro Se Discrimination, Double Stands, Opposite Case Law, Irina Chevaldina, Raanan Katz