Judge Orders Record Company Execs To Duluth

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Lest there be any doubt that District Judge Michael J. Davis, presiding over the Duluth, Minnesota, case, Capitol Records v. Thomas, really does 'get it' about the toxic effect the RIAA, its lead henchman Matthew Oppenheim, and their lawyers have had on the judicial process, all such doubt should be removed by the order he just entered (PDF). It removes control of the decision-making process from the RIAA, Oppenheim, and the lawyers. In the order Judge Davis spells out, in the clearest possible terms so that there can be no misunderstanding, that at the extraordinary 2-day settlement conference he has scheduled for later this month, each record company plaintiff is ordered to produce an 'officer' of the corporation, or a 'managing agent' of the corporation, who has corporate, decision-making, 'power.' The judge makes it clear that no one who has 'settlement authority' with any limits or range attached to it will be acceptable. This means that 'RIAA hitman' Matthew Oppenheim will not be able to control the settlement process as he has been permitted by the Courts to do in the past."

Comments

Re:If only...

[CaptainOfSpray]

Since when did not having an extradition agreement stop the US from abducting and removing anybody they feel like, to any country they feel like?

Choose Extraordinary Rendition for all your extralegal needs, you know it makes sense.

Punishment enough

[OhHellWithIt]

Duluth or Minneapolis, what's the difference? From what I hear, sending someone to Minnesota in late February/early March is punishment enough.

Re:Unfortunately I doubt it

[Hordeking]

I'd like to believe that such an outcome is beyond the realm of possibility, but the RIAA has links into the Obama administration through Biden, so such a swindle could indeed occur all kidding aside. One of the side effects of electing the Democrats this time around is granting the entertainment industry, with all of their special interests, enhanced access to the government pocketbook and the federal prosecutor.

Just as dangerous are the federal judges he has the power to appoint, combined with majority party blind support in both houses.

I wonder if any of the young college students who voted for Obama factored this into their decision. They may soon come to regret Obama's VP choice and his ties to the MAFIAA on a very personal level.

Do you really give them that much credit? I highly doubt 99% considered anything beyond the "four legs good, two legs bad" mentality that they have crammed into their heads.

In reality, college students probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. They're like welfare recipients. Why? Because they're usually in debt. Debt can make a man do things he wouldn't normally do. So they're more prone to be bought off by promises of "lower tuition!", "more tuition aid!", "easier to obtain loans!", and so on. Don't forget the perennial "your enemies are the corporations!", "their only goal is to make the wealthy wealthier!". Of course, this isn't much different from pandering to pensioners on social security. They party in charge wants to keep a constituency beholden to them in the next election. And if they can get a perpetual "cannot-kill" program that the other party generally disagrees with or wants to change, they can reap the benefits for multiple election cycles. Of course, disenfranchising beholden voters is an effective way to do this, but it foments civil unrest.

On the bright side, I'm seeing far more libertarian support when people aren't forced into a binary choice.