Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's top litigation lawyer, who has been personally leading the RIAA's litigation campaign for the past several years, Richard Gabriel, will be leaving his law practice after getting a job as a state court judge for a 2-year term in Colorado. What this will mean to the RIAA's litigation machine is anyone's guess. Mr. Gabriel has personally argued all of the RIAA's main cases, including Elektra v. Barker, Atlantic v. Howell, Atlantic v. Brennan, Capitol v. Foster, Atlantic v. Andersen, UMG v. Lindor, and London-Sire v. Doe 1, and personally tried the Capitol v. Thomas case, the only RIAA case that has ever gone to trial. He was working directly under the supervision of the RIAA's mysterious 'representative' Matthew Oppenheim."
He's appointed to state court, not federal court. Copyright cases are in federal court.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
As one of my professors used to teach us, it's the smart rat that leaves before the ship sinks.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Kill all the lawyers!
signed,
Will Shakespeare
1. It was primarily for the money, lots and lots of money.
2. It made him feel important; he was pretending to be a lawyer. (Never mind that most of the cases were "ex parte" cases and "default" cases, in which there was no opponent at all, and that in the remaining ones, most of the people couldn't afford a lawyer. So he was always "litigating" against either no one, or someone who had no lawyer, or in a few cases against an unpaid or underpaid lawyer. See, e.g. the eloquent opinion of Judge Otero in Elektra v. O'Brien in which the Judge, talking specifically about Mr. Gabriel's "cases", decried the fact that "the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants.") I.e., Mr. Gabriel is a man who has been making his living the past 2 1/2 years suing children, the disabled, the homeless, displaced persons, the elderly, people living on Welfare and Social Security, and other defenseless individuals, and taking money from innocent people simply because they couldn't afford the cost of defending a federal lawsuit.
And after communicating with him on practically a daily basis for the past 2 1/2 years.... I don't think he feels the slightest bit of shame over it.
I guess that about says it all.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Matthew Oppenheim is in fact a lawyer. His previous was work was with the MPAA, and he was a key player in shutting down various torrent sites in the past.
He may have never believed in their specific goal, but it's my understanding that if he believed that they had a legal case and he was willing to take up that case, then he was ethically bound to take all legal measures to support his clients while employed by them. It's also possible that he was assigned the case by his superiors at the law firm, which can be difficult to turn down short of a clear conflict of interest.
A lawyer cannot throw a case just because he doesn't like his client. There are penalties for that, including those handed down from the bar and possible civil remedies.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Also, he was elected for a term, which indicates elections are ahead. While most judges are pretty much re-elected ad-infinitum without so much as a "ho-hum" from the electorate, all it would take is a couple of well-placed commercials and ads touting his prior experiences and current performance (if negative), and he's toast. I don;t think the RIAA would have too much interest in bailing him out, so he'd be pretty much on his own.
Then again, who knows? :)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"Let them listen to CAKE!"
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The voters of the state of Colorado will have the opportunity to boot Richard Gabriel from the bench in the 2010 general election. Should they fail to do so, their next shot will be in 2018.
Colorado citizens now have two years to organize to unseat this particular justice should they find fault with the company he's kept and tactics he's used in his years of loyal service to the RIAA.
Judicial retention elections are almost always ignored but there's ample time to prepare for this one.
Interesting how the Republican announcement fails to mention RIAA.
Are you implying the Democrats had anything to say about it? Somehow, I don't think the Democrats and the Republicans are much different on the issue. If you want some indication, look at the PAC money from various lobby groups.
Here is a help with a direct link to the Lobby money from the recording industry.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=C2600
When you see a Republican in this mess, it makes news. When you see a Democrat, it's buisiness as usual. Be sure to look behind the curtain. Bookmark the homepage.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
and the Alphabetical listing;
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.php
See how your favorite canidate is doing and who supports them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
Here is the good one. How is the canidates doing in regard to how the movie, TV, and Recording industry is supporting your canidate. It sure looks they don't care for McCain.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=B02
With over 3 million each to the Dem canidate and only just over half a million to McCain, you can tell who they want. Follow the money.
The truth shall set you free!
True, Democrat Governor Bill Ritter doesn't realize how corrupt this makes him look. Anyone associated with RIAA is tainted, and now that taint just got on Democrat Governor Bill Ritter.
I hope Colorado voters know how this happened.
Meanwhile, Bush is likely to veto the PRO-IP Act endorsed by the MPAA and passed by the Democrat House of Representatives.
I hope American voters know how this happened.
No need to worry about this. The summary says he's going to be a state court judge. State courts are not allowed to hear copyright cases. See 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).
that's just because mccain aint gonna win. why waste the money on him?
It passed the House 410-10. There aren't 410 Democrats in the house. Give cred^H^H^H^H blame where it's due.
Since this bill is regarding the legal system directly, it was through the House Judiciary Committee, which is split - like all committees - between Democrats and Republicans. Yes, the Democrats on the committee shouldn't have passed that. But let's see about the other side, hmm?
First, we see that passing the HJC was unanimous, so both sides passed it.
We see that the ranking Republican is Lamar Smith, who has sought to expand the DCMA
The next most influential Republican is none other than Republican Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. For those of you without long-term recall, Rep. Sensenbrenner was the genius who introduced the PATRIOT ACT and authored Real ID
Another member, Tom Feeney, has been written about in Wired for his attempts at touch screen tampering
So yeah. It's the Dems behind this bill that are the bad guys.