restraining order against Virginia Coverdale NV News

[David McCarthy]

http://yelmonline.com/articles/2012/11/ ... 204316.txt

Judge: Ex-Ramtha student agreed to not distribute vids


By Steven Wyble
news3@yelmonline.com
Published: Friday, November 16, 2012 4:01 PM PST
A Thurston County Superior Court Judge granted JZK, Inc.’s request to convert a temporary restraining order against Virginia Coverdale to a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, preventing Coverdale from post ing videos of JZ Knight online.

Judge James J. Dixon also ordered Coverdale to contact Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to ask that videos she’s already posted be taken down.

The case stems from Coverdale releasing videos of Knight making disparaging remarks toward Catholics, Jews, Mexicans and organic farmers.

JZK, Inc. said in a statement released by its public relations company that the comments were taken out of context and were directed at abuse scandals in the Catholic church.

JZK, Inc. sued Coverdale to prevent her from releasing additional materials from Ramtha School of Enlightenment.

JZK, Inc.’s lawyers reaffirmed their argument on Wednesday that the legal issue comes down to a contract Coverdale signed in 2006 and 2007 prohibiting her from disseminating or reproducing information from the school.

Coverdale’s lawyer, Shawn Newman, argued that JZK, Inc.’s lawsuit amounts to a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), meant to censor Coverdale’s criticism of RSE.

Newman argued on Wednesday that JZK, Inc. has no legal authority to sue Coverdale because they don’t own the copyright of the videos in question.

JZ Knight owns the copyrights, he said.

Newman also presented the court with a written declaration by Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law.

Volokh wrote that a preliminary injunction against speech is “prior restraint” and that such injunctions violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, even when the speech could ultimately lead to damages or criminal liability.

JZK, Inc. lawyer Jeffrey Grant said Coverdale is free to continue to engage in criticism of the school, but must do so without using material the school owns because of the contract she signed.

He said JZK, Inc. is authorized to enforce the terms of its contract, regardless of who owns the copyright of the material.

Regarding Volokh’s declaration, Grant said Volokh represented his opinion. A memorandum submitted to the court by the plaintiff said, “Mr. Volokh’s own law review article admits that it is aspirational — courts have either not adopted, or have rejected, his position outright.”

Dixon ruled to order the preliminary injunction.

While there may be issues regarding whether the litigation is a SLAPP lawsuit, or whether there are other legal defenses, Dixon said that’s not what he was deciding.

“The only decision I’m asked to make today is to decide whether the facts in this case support the request by the plaintiff to continue … the preliminary injunction that I entered back from Nov. 1,” he said.

“I’m going to do that. This is not a difficult decision for the court to make.”

“The purpose of a temporary restraining or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the trial court can conduct a full hearing on the merits,” he said.

“In the case at hand, the evidence before me includes the allegations, if not the fact, that the defendant, Ms. Coverdale, signed a contract with JZK, Inc., and as part of that contract she acknowledged on at least two separate occasions, that she would not disseminate or distribute any of the materials essentially at issue in this particular case.

“It appears to the court that there is evidence to support the fact that she did disseminate that material.”

Dixon said Coverdale had “ample opportunity” to ask questions or challenge any provision in the contract before signing and she evidently didn’t.

He said the information disseminated by Coverdale is “proprietary to the plaintiff.”

“This is simply a contract issue,” he said.

He said there were two parties in the contract: JZK, Inc. and Coverdale.

In response to Newman’s argument that JZK, Inc. doesn’t have the right to sue because they have no ownership rights of the materials Coverdale posted online, Dixon said that may or not be the case, but that JZK, Inc. had standing to ask the court to prohibit Coverdale from disseminating the material.

RSE obtained the judge’s permission to stream the court proceedings live online.

[Sad Grandfather]

Well, I haven't signed any contract with Judy, so if those videos were to mysteriously appear in my email, I'd like to see her try to stop me from posting them, and if she doesn't like it, she can send her lawyers to Mississippi, where I doubt they will find the system as friendly as her paid lackeys in Thurston County.

I can also post them on my own website, and see how much luck she has getting them taken down. The only problem is, that I might have trouble figuring out how to post video to my site and make it work. I might need some help, there.