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."

Comments

State court, not federal court

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

He's appointed to state court, not federal court. Copyright cases are in federal court.

Timing is everything

[overshoot]

As one of my professors used to teach us, it's the smart rat that leaves before the ship sinks.

Re:awesome

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There's always the possibility that he never believed in the RIAA's bullshit and just did it all out of greed, but someone with such loose morals isn't the kind of person you'd want behind the bench. My feeling is that his motivations ran like this:

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.

Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases

[Penguinisto]

Not so sure in his case... he's answerable to the state legislature, not Congress (which means he can find himself on the docket a lot faster, esp. if he makes any local enemies, which his type I'm sure is prone to collecting).

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? :)

/P

CO Voters: Reject Richard Gabriel in Nov. 2010!

[Anonymous Coward]

The appointments are for a provisional term of two years, and then until the second Tuesday in January following the next general election. Thereafter, if retained by the voters, the term is for eight years.

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.

Re:No mention of the RIAA

[Technician]

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.

Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases

[DustyShadow]

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).