Slashdot Mirror
RIAA's Throwing In the Towel Covered a Sucker Punch
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."
Wouldn't this be contempt of court or some other punishment? I mean, I'm pretty sure the judges can't be too happy about trying to be tricked like this - can they punish the lawyers in any way?
Either their lawyers are incompetent or crooks or both but this is ridiculous. What were they expecting? That nobody was going to find out? Thanks to NYCL we get a little bit of fairness in the crooked justice system. How can you file a 'secret' lawsuit anyway?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
It's hard to believe these people actually attended law school, or are they just grabbing more money from RIAA by making it look like they're doing something?
It sure seems ridiculous from an outside point of view, but I wonder what actually goes on. Any theories?
"we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
A question for Ray (and any other lawyers on /.): I know lawyers are required to do what they can to the best of their ability for their clients but, to me, a non-lawyer, it really seems like the RIAA lawyers are playing dirty pool to the Nth degree. They aren't just doing everything they can - they are going beyond the call of duty to succeed even if it is beyond the scope of law and morals. Is this sort of conduct "normal" for lawyers (as in, common enough that this isn't terribly surprising) or are the RIAA lawyers truly standing out from the crowd with their actions?
Seriously, if they're gaming the system this way, they deserve to lose their licenses. This is clearly unethical and deceptive.
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.
I would like to know how this sort of thing works within the boundaries of ethics rules. Sanctions? Disbarment?
Anyone have knowledge to input?
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 based on user account deletion
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?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
They've done that too. They've also sued the dead, people who don't even own a computer, and paralyzed stroke victims.
It depends on jurisdiction. I did pretty bad in Civil Procedure, and don't have my FRCP in front of me, but in Federal Court (which I don't even know if theyre in since I didn't RTFA), you get 2 bites at the apple. You can voluntarily remove yourself once, then refile and I think if there's a procedural problem, you can also remove and refile. Don't quote me on all that though.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
why it is so important to try and nail this particular defendant. It's not like they lack potential victims; drop "making available" (just as they did in refiling this one) and do the next sweep. Is it only because they're pissed this one got away? They can't afford it. Revenge is a dish best prepared from correct ingredients; if all you have is crap, just keep shoveling it in front of the ventilator, and don't attempt precision targeting.
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
Maybe I'm wrong, but to be a practicing attorney, you are legally obligated to be ethical.
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.
So if NYCL is our enemy, as you claim, then what the screaming budgie fuck does that make the RIAA lawyers? Boy scouts, paragons of humanity, and the future leaders of the free world? I think not. The RIAA lawyers, truth be told, are trying to get their clients a victory in civil court. But they are going about it in such a way, that even if NYCL was the stereotypical ambulance chaser kind of lawyer and the kind that carries a spare neck brace for defendants in auto accident cases, he would still look like the good guy in this by comparison.
Snidely Whiplash, tying Little Nell to the train-tracks, would look like a good guy by comparison.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
One interesting solution I've heard for this sort of unethical lawyering is to require lawyers to carry malpractice insurance. Talk to any doctor, and they'll tell you that malpractice insurance actually makes them targets for litigation, since the prosecution knows there is a higher chance of a high payout. At least in my state, it's mandatory doctors carry it. Apply that same rule to lawyers, and you would get a great, entertaining situation of lawyers suing each other over malpractice. Too bad politicians are typically lawyers.
These days I only buy from non-RIAA acts, since all the used CD stores where I live have basically been run out of town.
www.riaaradar.com
There is a war going on for your mind.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
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.
So for all those who haven't, or forgotten to say it, THANK YOU NYCL.
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.
The truth shall set you free!
Thanks, aurispector.... you made my day.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
NYCL: at what point do the RIAA open themselves up to racketeering charges with behavior like this?
Just out of interest: has Ms. Cassin decided whether to pursue a claim for attorneys' fees as a result of the previous suit being dropped?
Boy, if this doesn't convince her to go after them, nothing will. I'd be feeling a little vindictive myself!
licet differant, aequabitur
Actually, here in New York we do see a string of lawyers getting disbarred. Usually these are very young, or very NOT-powerful lawyers, getting sacked for some very minor crap- missing a deadline, good faith mediation between two friends/ clients.
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".