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

What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

A good start.

New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases

[Adriax]

It means they'll file to get every case moved to his courtroom.

Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases

[actionbastard]

It means they'll file to get every case moved to his courtroom.

So that every defendant moves to have him recuse himself from the proceeding.

Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases

[Penguinisto]

That would sort of depend on why he left. If he left due to any acrimony, the RIAA would likely go out of their way to stay well clear of his courtroom (and it would only affect Colorado residents anyway)

Also, he may have left after sniffing the wind and seeing that other judges are starting to find the RIAA's tactics to be questionable at best... and likely wants to be well clear of the RIAA if/when it finally (okay, hopefully) implodes.

Finally, even if he did hear any of these cases, he's have two fears constantly on his mind: Appeals, and the possibility that not recusing himself from an case involving his former employer would likely land him in hotter water than by simply recusing himself in the first place.

Just idle thoughts - standard disclaimers pply, etc. :)

/P

Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases

[m.ducharme]

Also, he may have been bucking for a seat on the Bench for a long time now, and finally got his chance.

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

Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases

[Penguinisto]

...I was under the impression that most, if not all, judges start out as lawyers.

Frighteningly enough, so do most politicians...

/P

Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases

[Cathoderoytube]

Don't you ever watch tv? That won't happen, he'll have to give his former buddies a hard time to show he's not playing any favorites. Then they'll be all like 'Why're you giving us such a hard time?' then he'll be like 'Because I don't want people to think I'm playing favorites. I mean we were practically married before', then they'll be like 'Oh so that's how it is, is it? You know, you left your ipod at our apartment last time you were over. It would be a shame if people found out about your ILLEGAL ABBA MP3's!' then he'll be like 'Yeah you don't scare me, I'll just make file sharing legal!' then they'll be like 'Oh ho ho will you now? What makes you think we'll be filing any cases in your district?' then he'll be like 'What happened to us?' then they'll be like 'You forgot your friends! And you became a complete jerk since you became a judge! We feel like we don't even know you any more!' then he'll be like 'It's true! I've worked so hard to impress the other judges I forgot who my real friends were!'. Then they'll hug and make up.

So yeah, they'll be filing all their cases in his district.

Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases

[Opportunist]

How about "since the RIAA noticed that judges turn against them, they think it's time that they not only get lawyers but also judges that support their cases"?

Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases

[Alien Being]

And therein lies the horrible though that crossed my mind when I read the headline. "Those scumbag riaa bastards have put a guy on the bench."

He *might* serve five years, then go back to the riaa for giant buckos.

---

Damned weed, three pokes and I figured Iraq might turn into another Vietnam.

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).

awesome

[Frosty-B-Bad]

so a man that thinks the RIAA is honest and right is now a judge in the United States Courts. Somehow the words just can't describe the feelings of failure that have surfaced when I read this post.

Re:awesome

[Yeef]

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. It seems to be a lose-lose situation for the people of Colorado.

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:awesome

[Martin Blank]

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.

Re:awesome

[CodeBuster]

Unfortunately, it is people like this RIAA lawyer who give the legal profession such a bad reputation among the general public whereas honest and upright lawyers, like our friend NewYorkCountryLawyer, receive much of the ill will associated with that negative reputation and very little recognition for the good work that they do. I for one would like to take this opportunity to thank NewYorkCountryLawyer for the excellent work that he has done in compiling the various briefs, decisions, along with his own original commentary and arguments, and other related materials on his blog to assist in the defense of the ordinary working folks who are being crushed by the RIAA and their unscrupulous attorneys.

Some of the defendants may have sinned yes, but was their crime (assuming that they are convicted and that is not a certainty) really so great as to merit the complete destruction of their lives and their utter financial ruin? It is really too bad that the RIAA has chosen to take the lowest of the low roads with their lawsuit campaign, but hopefully with interested people like NewYorkCountryLawyer and Slashdot staying on top of things we can eventually compel the RIAA and their members to quit harassing the public in lieu of actually having a business plan.

Re:awesome

[Martin Blank]

This is true, but again, he may have been assigned the cases by his law firm, in which case he may have had little choice other than to resign. This is always an option when presented with a moral dilemma, but he may just not have been torn as much as you or I might have been.

Re:awesome

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Why, Mr. Gabriel. How nice to see you. Welcome aboard the Slashdot Express ... ticket, please. I don't think that AC was Mr. Gabriel.

I think it's some new guy they hired, who doesn't know that I'm 60, that I've met Mr. Gabriel a number of times and communicate with him many times a week, and that I understand Mr. Gabriel's job a lot better than Mr. Gabriel does.

Re:awesome

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I've been a litigation attorney for almost 30 years. Some of the best friends I have are people I met as spirited adversaries in contentious, lengthy, hard fought, litigations. If you think I have anything against Mr. Gabriel because he was "upholding the rule of law" or advancing "a legitimate gripe" or because he was on the "wrong" side of legal issues.... you don't know me at all.

Re:awesome

[Kingrames]

On the contrary, It's people like NewYorkCountryLawyer who are ruining the perfectly good reputation of lawyers by giving people hope.

Re:awesome

[Concerned Onlooker]

"Unfortunately, it is people like this RIAA lawyer who give the legal profession such a bad reputation among the general public..."

I know. It's that 99% of lawyers that give the rest a bad name.

THIS JUST IN...

[Frightened_Turtle]

"RIAA announces they'll be filing all future litigation in Colorado!!!"

Appointed by Gov Ritter

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently Governor Ritter doesn't realize how corrupt this makes him look. Anyone associated with RIAA is tainted, and now that taint just got on the governor. I hope Colorado voters know this happened.

Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

He probably doesn't, because it's only to an extremely small minority that it does. Outside of the relatively small number of people reading this website, you'd be amazed at how little awareness there is.

Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter

[janrinok]

I'm not an American, so please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.

I don't agree that the RIAA are tainted. Their tactics certainly are and they should be prevented from repeating them. But they have a job to do. There is illegal sharing of copyrighted material taking place and it is their job to protect their interests. Those who simply advocate the sharing should be made legal have, in my view, placed their heads up their arses.

Now I don't expect my point of view to receive wide acclaim here on /., but take a look at NYCL's post earlier on. He doesn't 'hate' Gabriel for what he has done, in fact if I read it correctly he respects him as a fellow professional. But he does question Gabriel's understanding of his own job. That's fine and is a reasonable attitude to take. Others have explained why Gabriel might have been duty bound to accept the cases in the first place but I, for one, am glad that the legal profession has many such individuals. Otherwise, who would defend the person accused of murder, who would look after the interests of the poor and homeless, and who would defend those accused of illegal file sharing? They all need lawyers.

The object of your displeasure ought to be the legal system that allows the RIAA to use the tactics that they do (although I think we all sense that this is changing for the better), but not the lawyer who uses the system within the current rules to win his case. I would want any lawyer that I employed to try his hardest to win on my behalf - providing that he did not do something illegal by doing so. If your response is that people cannot afford to fight the big money then that, again, is the system that needs changing, not the fact that some people have more money than others. Change the system so that the poorest can get access to the best legal minds. Make sure that all evidence is collected legally, presented accurately, and judged fairly. That is what NYCL seems to be so good at doing.

Of course we all feel dismayed when the system is gamed, and the RIAA do seem to have had some success at gaming it over recent years. But change the system - or find a better way of preventing illegal file sharing so that there is no need for the RIAA to have to go to court to try to protect their interests.

Why do I have the feeling that some will misunderstand what I have written and they are bashing at their keyboards seconds after I have pressed the 'Submit' button.....?

Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter

[torstenvl]

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.

Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

take a look at NYCL's post earlier on. He doesn't 'hate' Gabriel for what he has done, in fact if I read it correctly he respects him as a fellow professional. Sorry friend. You did NOT "read it correctly". I do hate Mr. Gabriel for what he is done and I have ZERO respect for him as a "fellow professional". He is a "fellow professional" in name only. His concept of what a lawyer is, and mine, bear no resemblance. In my view, and that of many other of my "fellow professionals", he has been an embarrassment to our profession.

I can't imagine what you were reading of mine that could have made you believe I felt otherwise. This what I said about him. What part of that do you think shows "respect"? Then when someone said I shouldn't attack Mr. Gabriel just because he was my adversary, I responded with this, saying that the reason I hate him has nothing to do with his being an adversary or taking positions contrary to mine.

State court, not federal court

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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

Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom

[Stormwatch]

Aw, man, that's animal cruelty.

Timing is everything

[overshoot]

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

there are still privacy concerns that come up

[reiisi]

Actually, I'm sitting here thinking how copyright has been part of the tide that helped turn the US Constitution upside down.

Matters of individual and family welfare were supposed to be handled at the bottom level as much as possible. Somehow, the need to monitor the Kluless Klutz Klan and its ikl from above has been an inroad to stretching the normal lines of control. But people who see chances for personal "advantage" in those long lines of control are naturally going to push to extend them further, so it's only natural that matters of personal privacy end up getting handled under "federal" law now.

So maybe there aren't any privacy concerns that will come up in state court, and this will be a good place to keep the guy where he can't do further damage.

Somehow, I'm not optimistic.

(Yes, I am of the opinion that the primary evil in giving IP a legal existence is that it finishes off the erosion of privacy. RMS's essays on the relationship seemed extreme when he wrote them, but the reality of the threat is becoming quite obvious now.)

"Jumps Ship"

[Kingrames]

I KNEW IT!

I totally knew they were pirates all along!

Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom

[redcaboodle]

Sharks never attack lawyers - professional courtesy.

Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom

[Abreu]

What do you call 1 lawyer chained to the bottom of the sea? Pollution!

What do you call all of the world's lawyers chained to the bottom of the sea? Solution!

Thank you, Thank you! Try the steak!

Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom

[Raconteur]

http://www.lawyer-jokes.us/ One of my favs: What do you do when you see four lawyers up to the neck in wet cement? Answer: get more cement! The point of this post: searching for 'riaa' at that site produces no results. Slackers!!! Get on it!

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.

Well Ray

[Psychotria]

Ray, this is what I propose: I will assume the role of an alcoholic homeless person living in a carboard box. During my spare time I will build a computer out of coconuts and driftwood. I will then use this computer to post on slashdot and download illegal files. When the RIAA summons me to court I will make a suit out of seaweed and defend myself. Cunningly I will have counsel (you). I will then throw away my disguise and expose my underpants that I wear outside my stockings, proclaim I am superman, and hit them wear it hurts. What are your thoughts?

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:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom

[xSauronx]

now theyre judges. yay.

Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The converse, of course, is not true. ;)