RIAA's Throwing In the Towel Covered a Sucker Punch 411
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA threw in the towel, all right, but was only doing it in preparation for throwing a sucker punch. After dropping its 'making available' case, Warner v. Cassin, before Judge Robinson could decide whether to dismiss or not, it was only trying to do an 'end run' (if I may mix my sports metaphors) around the judge's deciding the motion and freezing discovery. The RIAA immediately, and secretly, filed a new case against the family, calling this one 'Warner v. Does 1-4.' In their papers the lawyers 'forgot' to mention that the new case was related. As a result, Does 1-4 was assigned to another judge, who knew nothing about the old case. The RIAA lawyers also may have forgotten that they couldn't bring any more cases over this same claim, since they'd already dismissed it twice before. Not to worry, NYCL wrote letters to both judges, reminding them of what the RIAA lawyers had forgotten."
I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain this (Score:5, Interesting)
How can they get away with this (Score:5, Interesting)
It's hard to believe. (Score:2, Interesting)
It sure seems ridiculous from an outside point of view, but I wonder what actually goes on. Any theories?
Re:How can they get away with this (Score:5, Interesting)
Dirty Pool (Score:5, Interesting)
Disbar the RIAA lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, if you chose to think that they just forgot about the second suit, they're clearly so fucking incompetent that they deserve disbarment anyway.
Jeez, that's some scummy shit.
Isn't this well into sanctionable territory? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone have knowledge to input?
Not a smart move (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think this is a smart move. Given that the first case is still active, and that the new case involves the same acts and the same defendants, can't the defense move to have the new case reassigned to the first judge and consolidated with the first case? I'd think that would be a lawyer's worst nightmare, to have tried this kind of end-run and wind up back in front of the judge you tried to evade anyway. He's sure to be none too thrilled about it, and now has a reason to crack down harder.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Sanctions? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't just mean the RIAA, either. SCO v IBM stands out as another really big example where lawyers get to screw directly with the things that we in geekdom make a daily living from (e.g. the RIAA spewing mistruths about how the Internet works, corps claiming rights they do not have over code, etc).
As a bonus, maybe keeping the less scrupulous lawyers among us honest will at least make things a little easier for all of us.
Even coordinating a letter-writing campaign couldn't hurt, y'know?
Re:Not innocent enough! (Score:5, Interesting)
They've done that too. [blogspot.com] They've also sued the dead, [theregister.co.uk] people who don't even own a computer, [neowin.net] and paralyzed stroke victims. [slashdot.org]
Re:Dirty Pool (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks, NYCL.
Re:Estoppel (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dirty Pool (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, I want my lawyers ready and willing to sue their own mothers if that's what I want them to do.
I regard lawyers (mine or not) as instruments of the client's will. It is the RIAA that is the scumbags, because they're the ones asking for, or at least not blocking, their tactics.
Disbar them (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dirty Pool (Score:5, Interesting)
Example: [slashdot.org] Another example: [slashdot.org] Another: [slashdot.org] I think it's safe to say that NYCL has a low opinion of their tactics both from an ethical standpoint and from a legal practice standpoint.
Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (Score:3, Interesting)
It is easy. Lets hope a judge does hear the case. Maybe go like this.
Judge: Defense, I would entertain a counter suit for harassment.
Defense: I can have one on your desk tomorrow AM.
Judge: Good, we reconvene tomorrow, 1PM.
Next day...1pm.
Judge: Before I dismiss the claim, I pronounce the defendants all receive 1M plus legal fees. This is compensatory damages for harassment. If this is appealed, or comes up a again I would like to add the notes to double the awards.
Judge: Case dismissed with prejudice.
Re:i want to kill myself (Score:5, Interesting)
Snidely Whiplash, tying Little Nell to the train-tracks, would look like a good guy by comparison.
One solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dirty Pool (Score:2, Interesting)
The tacit acceptance of the "ruthless mother-selling bastard" culture among lawyers seems extremely careless to me. Have we forgotten that a large number of people in high positions of power in pretty much all western countries are lawyers or former lawyers?
And then we're surprised when they pull stuff like the DMCA or the USAPATRIOT Act.
Re:These are the people you buy media from... (Score:3, Interesting)
www.riaaradar.com
Re:Pathetic (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Disbar the RIAA lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe we can think of this another way - can RIAA cases be used as a honeypot? Let the lawyers bring cases forward, have "judges" spend a few years waffling about it, while the families pretend to be mortified (they've been let in on the whole thing). Then the lawyers are kept busy on pointless cases that go nowhere, and the rest of us can live our lives in peace.
Actually, maybe that's happening already...
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:i want to kill myself (Score:3, Interesting)
Time to think outside the box... (Score:4, Interesting)
I say we play into their game... to their detriment.
Find the lamest, most retarded RIAA artist out there (I'm thinking orders of magnitude beyond Milli Vanilli here) and everyone (and I mean everyone) buy ONLY that artist's material. Buy every CD, online album, single, ringtone, whatever. I wanna see that artist as the sole occupant of every music chart and radio playlist. The more obvious to everyone of the sham that is taking place, the better.
Once the RIAA is dependent on this single jackass of an artist for all of their revenue (effectively killing off the rest of their artists or driving them outside the RIAA), stop buying. Let the competition, based on free market labels and artists with true talent, drive the final stake through their sorry butts. It will go down as one of the most hilarious (and satisfying) scandals ever.
Re:How can they get away with this (Score:3, Interesting)
There are obviously lots and lots of incompetent people that are not lawyers. And of course, many crooks are not lawyers. However, the "Lawyer" set overlaps so completely with the "Crook" set to the point that "Lawyer" is almost a subset of "Crook". And of course, the Lawyer/Incompetent overlap falls almost entirely within the Lawyer/Crook overlap - because if you're an incompetent lawyer, than almost the only way to stay in business is to also be a crook.
Now, the RIAA seems to pull its entire legal staff from the place where "Lawyer", "Incompetent", and "Crook" all overlap. If you're sketching this all out yourself, you should have a very small section where "Lawyer" doesn't overlap "Incompetent" or "Crook". There, you will find NYCL and, maybe 1 or 2 other people.
Re:Saying Thanks (Score:3, Interesting)
In support of his fine work, he is the first Friend I picked on Slashdot. Show your support by listing him as a friend. I noticed you haven't done this yet, otherwise your post would have shown on my screen as you being a friend of a friend. Can you add him as a friend to say thanks and show your support? This guy should have a huge Fan list. He earned it.
Re:NYCL FTW! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:NYCL FTW! (Score:2, Interesting)
From the previous case ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Boy, if this doesn't convince her to go after them, nothing will. I'd be feeling a little vindictive myself!
Disbarments (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, one of the most powerful Landlord attorneys (I think named partner from Borah, Goldstein) used his subpoena powers to improperly and secretly invade tenant's financial privacy, perjured his affidavits of service that stated he mailed copies of the subpoenas to both sides, violated undiscoverable tenant financial/ ID theft level information, and benefited financially from his unethical and criminal conduct. Penalty after being found guilty for over a decade of outrageous conduct? Two months suspension and a pat on the back. Currently back in action. This is a major named partner mind you. If he's not the example then who is? Note- two month suspension is rumored to have come with free airplane tickets for worldwide junket and room and board covered all courtesy of the Bar(s) here. A two month paid vacation for criminal conduct? New York Bar in action.
Contrast. Young lawyer panics, misses deadline for litigation that could be nunc pro tunc extended retroactively any damn way. Penalty- permanent disbarment and vicious public tongue lashing in the Law Journal.
Representing adversaries- lawyer, my lawyer. Gets disbarred for representing both sides (decent guy, bad choices). His firm, my firm, then represents the other side against me in a related action to the one he represented me in. USCA Second Circuit 3-judge panel- it's AOK despite having my litigation file- even after a state judge ruled they were indeed my attorneys defending against the slumlords. And even after they bailed from another case when Judge Reena Raggi ordered the matter investigated. So in New York, state and federal, serving up an associate as sacrifice is all it takes.
Last but not least. Stephen Romer, most famous NY client funds case circa 1992- his case inspired the set up of NY's IOLTA scheme after his case depleted the fund. He was the landlord of my office, and while he did not try to evict me personally, he evicted my staff (the Dúnedai) who then built me my own office in the years before the Black Tower (a/k/a White & Case) took up arms to defend me from the demon Nemisis (not Nemesis) at the Pale High Priest's bidding. (Lord of the Rings makes law sooooo much more interesting.) This successful and rich lawyer who owned swaths of property claimed to have been kidnapped, robbed, and otherwise mishandled, but without so much as a peep became a non-entity. He claimed that powerful car companies had crushed his efforts to create a new car line of efficient cars. His claim was deemed ludicrous and absurd. He was railroaded into jail without so much as a lawyer friend helping him. Total pariah- gone. Romer, a man of wealth, a philanthropist, adopted father of Sudanese children, suddenly was toxic.
But I, for whom his eviction of my crew certainly did not endear me, sat scratching my head in my new office. Why was his claim so easily dismissed? It is no secret that the mighty Darth Nader, before turning to the dark side, defeated the Greedy Monster in the Supreme Court for doing all of the things that Stephen Romer claimed. Nader v. General Motors. It's a classic case- we know that the auto industry has a history of that sort of conduct. Romer did actually have mobilized plans to start up a real eco-friendly car company. Surely someone should pursue the possibility? Well, not I, my own problems with an evil High Priest and a demon that makes Balrogs look lapdogs in comparison.
My point here is that any attorney who aspires to be clean, or philanthropic, or ethical in any way, shape, or form, can find himself or herself the sacrificial lamb for other attorney's crimes. And when you actually do something wrong, as a clean attorney you get hit with the max every time, while blatant crooks prance around unscathed bragging about the Bar's "self-policing".