Slashdot Mirror
Jammie Thomas May Face RIAA Trial Alone
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "With her trial coming up on June 15th, Jammie Thomas has received a motion by her lawyer to withdraw from the highly publicized case, Capitol Records v. Thomas. Ms. Thomas said in a written declaration (PDF) obtained from her by her lawyer that she was not opposed to the lawyer's withdrawal, and waived any hearing on the matter. The court papers submitted by the lawyer (PDF) also indicated that the RIAA was not opposed to the withdrawal — i.e. it graciously consented to Ms. Thomas having no legal representation — but was opposed to any continuance (i.e. the RIAA wants to make sure that Ms. Thomas does not have sufficient time to find other legal representation, or to prepare to handle the trial herself, or to enable new counsel to prepare to handle the trial). Nice of them."
Bought off or warned off?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm not terribly convinced Jammie Thomas is a great case to fight the RIAA with;
Have I misunderstood the paperwork? reading between the lines it appears her lawyer is withdrawing and he is concerned that he has information contradictory to the line of argument his client wants put forward, and as an officer of the court, money matters aside, he feels he cannot go on.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
When your lawyer won't even stick around to see you get torn apart in the courtroom, perhaps it's time to cut a deal.
1. http://www.partyvan.eu/static/low_orbit_ion_cannon.html
2. Target riaa.com
3. Imma chargin mah lazer
4. ???
5. Shit bricks
Is that actually why the lawyer is withdrawing? Has he given a reason?
Otherwise it could be anything. Maybe he has bad case of rectal fissures and needs to be hospitalized.
Only bad lawyers walk away from a guilty party just because of their guilt. Hell that's what corp. lawyers could paid in the millions for.
More than likely a financial, reputation, personal, or conflicting issue.
You sound like a RIAA lawyer and don't seem to realise what agent of the court implies. Lawyers are expected to ensure that the trial is fair above presenting their client's case in the best light. This works both ways, a defendant has all right to defend itself against the plaintiff's allegations.
Going in a bit more detail, why did the RIAA lawyers push the jury instruction that caused the judge to declare a mistrial?
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
Acting in your client's best interests may indeed mean protesting a continuance, but most general norms of decency would see it a little differently.
If the reason for her lawyer's withdrawal is her inability to pay, then she is not likely to find alternative counsel even with a continuance. In that case, protesting the continuance, is a no-win situation for the RIAA, and only generates further bad press. No average person can reasonably be assumed capable of defending themselves without a lawyer, so again, no additional threat even if she has more time to prepare.
Your question is about what's the problem with what the RIAA is doing, my question is rather, what's the harm to them in letting her look for another lawyer given the most likely reason for the current one withdrawing?
Seems like the case is waiting for our superhero, NYCL, to step in and save the day :)
Your question is about what's the problem with what the RIAA is doing, my question is rather, what's the harm to them in letting her look for another lawyer given the most likely reason for the current one withdrawing?
Their lawyers cost money too, you know? Maybe having this case going on for 3 years is a bit much, and they want to get this done and over?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammie_Thomas
"A hard drive containing the copyrighted songs was never presented at the trial."
"The judge in Thomas' trial ordered a retrial because recent case law has cast doubt on the theory of "making available" as sufficient for infringement."
You know, for all the vitriol on this board, it seems surprising to me that money isn't overflowing this nice lady's coffers for lawyers.
expandfairuse.org
When your lawyer won't even stick around to see you get torn apart in the courtroom, perhaps it's time to cut a deal.
I'm sure she tried hard to do that. But what the RIAA has no doubt done is to raise the settlement bar to a number she can't afford. Partly out of retribution. Partly out of a desire not to see the case settle at this juncture, because, in its present posture, the case is an embarrassment to the RIAA and a stern rebuke to their moronic legal theory. Partly because they know she's defenseless, having either no lawyer or having a lawyer who's there only involuntarily.
I know these guys. This is how they work. They smell blood.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray, I'm curious why you haven't said much at all as to why her lawyer might be withdrawing from the case. Aside from your customary, thinly-veiled swipes at the plaintiffs, I don't see anything addressing this. If her case is as strong as you have been implying consistently in your comments over the past months (and I think I've read every single one of them), it certainly seems odd that an attorney would bail on a slam-dunk case like this one. Surely there has to be another (more objective) explanation or two?
Thanks, /HJ
p.s. I'm not trying to be a troll, and I happen to dislike (and disagree with) the RIAA and their tactics as much as anyone else here. But it's equally hard for me to stomach an ostensibly neutral (in the sense of not being involved with this case), eminently qualified observer such as yourself constantly cheerleading for the defense, while giving no quarter whatsoever to the possibility that the opposing side's arguments might have at least some merit.
The opinion in the summary is that of a lawyer.
I'm not trying to be a troll, and I happen to dislike (and disagree with) the RIAA and their tactics as much as anyone else here. But....
I suspect you are a troll, but...
1. He is leaving because he hasn't been paid.
2. I have never expressed any opinion about the underlying case; I am not familiar with the facts of this particular case.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If you have some opinion on the topic, reply like everyone else.
Usually I just report facts. Occasionally I put in an opinion, clearly identifiable as such. The Slashdot editors would take it out, or reject the story altogether, if they found it inappropriate. If you find it inappropriate, sorry.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray, I'm curious why you haven't said much at all as to why her lawyer might be withdrawing from the case. Aside from your customary, thinly-veiled swipes at the plaintiffs, I don't see anything addressing this. If her case is as strong as you have been implying consistently in your comments over the past months (and I think I've read every single one of them), it certainly seems odd that an attorney would bail on a slam-dunk case like this one. Surely there has to be another (more objective) explanation or two?
Not NYCL (and IANAL to boot), but I don't think this case is a "slam-dunk". Yes, the judge messed up big time with that jury instruction, and with a binding precedent that the plaintiff must show actual distribution (as opposed to "making available"), the RIAA's case doesn't look all the rosy. But there's still one issue that I don't believe has been resolved - do the downloads made by MediaSentry (under whatever name they're using this week) constitute unlawful distribution? Because that is the *only* distribution that the RIAA's goon squad can actually prove, and there's some case law that seems to say that the distribution has to be to the public, and distribution to agents of the copyright holder don't count.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
So which is it?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Please, I am not interested in reading someone's blog here, where you select the topic AND give your opinion on it. You select the topic and summarize it, then EVERYONE responds with opinion, commentary, etc
Is any of the following untrue; a) the lawyer wants to withdraw, b) persuaded Thomson to sign a declaration that she wouldn't object, c) the lawyer published such declaration, d) Thomson is now without legal counsel, e) the RIAA is opposed to continuance, f) Thomson has insufficient time in acquiring new counsel and preparing a case and g) therefore will most probably have to go into court against the RIAA without legal representation.
I rest my case, your Honor
davecb5620@gmail.com
or maybe she is guilty as hell, her lawyer knows it, and didn't want to fight a battle he would inevitably lose badly?
But no, as she is being prosecuted by the record companies, she MUST be innocent right?
Amazing though it sounds, a lot of people DO pirate music, some of them get caught, and a very few of them are stupid enough to try and feign innocence in that situation.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Wow.
You really think anyone who doesn't spit and curse at the RIAA whilst declaring Jammie Thomas to be innocent is a troll?
Is that how you fight court battles?
"I'm not responding to the prosecutor because I suspect they are a troll".
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Is this the kind of justice we can expect in America? Having your life financially ruined by astronomical damages for copying songs?! How can any sane judge with any sense of justice even allow this to continue?
We all knew stories about backward country with religious zealot wielding harsh laws punishing poor oppressed victim for seemingly trivial offense, but this kind of cases are telling you the America is not that much different, it is just that corporates+money have replaced the religious zealots+dogma.
The settlement attempts failed. A trial date looms. Defendant's counsel has been working as the Court has ordered, having expended thus far $129,485 of uncompensated-for time that will never be recovered, coupled with the likelihood that a similar, additional amount will be incurred if ordered to continue representation of defendant who originally caused this firm by means of false representations.
Oops, you forgot to post as AC that time.
Believe it or not, ethical lawyers do exist. I've got some lawyer friends who won't take a case to defend a guilty party. It's got nothing to do with wanting a 100% win track record, and everything to do with feeling that it's wrong to get a guilty party off on a technicality.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
MediaSentry is an unlicensed investigator. As such, any evidence they gained is inadmissable.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
Yeah, because someone posting conflicted views on a subject as AC while declaring themselves not to be a troll is definitely genuine. Plus, uh.. he did respond?
MediaSentry is an unlicensed investigator. As such, any evidence they gained is inadmissable.
Tell it to da judge. The case against Jammie Thomas is based *solely* upon the "evidence" provided by MediaSentry. Yeah, they have a hard drive, with songs on it, but there's no proof that these were offered for upload except for MediaSentry's word.
I'm not sure if this was even argued by her attorney...
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
You may think this way, but as an attorney acting in your client's best interests, you will use all the legal means at your disposal to win the case.If this means 'inconveniencing' the defendant, so be it, specially when the defendant is happy to assist in hamstringing their own case.
Actions that may result in a retrial/mistrial definately are not in the client's best interest.
The lawyer wants to cut his losses at this point.
This is independent of whether Jammie is guilty of the heinous tort of copyright infringement of 24 songs, for which RIAA was happy to have her fined $222,000. (And yes, I added that tidbit just to bait you.)
the case is an embarrassment to the RIAA and a stern rebuke to their moronic legal theory
I have never expressed any opinion about the underlying case; I am not familiar with the facts of this particular case.
So which is it?
Fair question. Let me clarify.
I have never expressed any opinion about the underlying facts. I.e., I don't know what Ms. Thomas did or didn't do, or what was going on with her computer, etc.
I do know that (a) Jacobson's testimony, upon which plaintiffs' entire case rested, was bogus and inadmissible; (b) the plaintiffs' legal theory, which has now been rejected by the Court, was bogus; (c) plaintiffs have no evidence that defendant was a "distributor'; and (d) their statutory damages theory is unlikely to pass constitutional muster.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
it's wrong to get a guilty party off on a technicality.
I can certainly understand the sentiment. I could see myself having a hard time working for someone who I thought was guilty of a heinous crime(if I was a lawyer), but the guilty party still needs representation.
The goal of an ethical lawyer defending a party should not be to try to find dishonest loopholes, but to ensure that the prosecuting party is playing by the rules.
They play both sides, and cut their losses and run if things get sour.
Our NYCL makes out to be a good guy (and I'm sure he is personally), but don't get confused by the fact that he's defending "our side" of the battle against the RIAA. He won't do anything that isn't in his business interests either. Ethics don't come into it for lawyers.
So yes, this is the state of "justice" in America. It's a business.
(Worth noting that Europe is somewhat unique in the world in this area. While EU justice is far from perfect, the word "justice" does actually mean something *strong*, and your ability to pay has very little bearing on the process. It's one of the aspects of Europe that has survived with high integrity, amid generally falling standards.)
Reading the Toder memorandum, it seems that Ja[m]mie's lawyer isn't getting paid.
That's what it's all about. Most lawyers, like most other people, don't like to work if they're not getting paid for it (unless that's what they agreed to do, which he didn't). Lawyers like anyone else have families to support and bills to be paid.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Please note that a lawyer "doing $130,000 of work" is exactly equivalent to the RIAA's claims of $200,000 damages when 20-odd CDs are copied.
I wrote over 5,000 lines of beautifully designed and fully tested code last month, that's easily "$100,000 of work". I'm sure my client will see the justice of it when I present the bill ...
Why doesn't Ms. Thomas set up a legal fund donation page via PayPal, for example? I'd contribute some funds to this cause. It deserves attention.
Has she sought legal aid? Or the support of the ACLU, EFF or a law school? Her time is running short. This is an unfortunate situation because the likelihood of setting an important precedent very favourable to the RIAA is quite high, now.
I do know that (a) Jacobson's testimony, upon which plaintiffs' entire case rested, was bogus and inadmissible; (b) the plaintiffs' legal theory, which has now been rejected by the Court, was bogus; (c) plaintiffs have no evidence that defendant was a "distributor'; and (d) their statutory damages theory is unlikely to pass constitutional muster.
Given all that, we're back where we started. Strong case, high profile, "evil" opponent - the sort of case many lawyers take pro-bono anyway. When her attorney defended the case as he did, he must have known it was going to last for a while, right?
So that still leaves us with "why did he bail?" I'm not likely to accept "money" as that reason unless her attorney was drop-dead stupid, since he knew her financial situation and how expensive the trial was likely to be.
If that's the case, then we're left with an uncomfortable possibility: namely, that his stated reasons for leaving might be legitimate.
To echo another poster, just because the RIAA is generally wrong doesn't mean that all their opponents are specifically right. It's possible, in fact, that Jammie Thomas is guilty. That's a good reason to be more selective, as a community, in choosing our champions.
there is the possibility the lawyer told her not to object to his leaving and that he would waive/slash her bill. Just to get moving down the road. Plus, IANAA, but can't he write off her non-payment against his total income?
I care just as much that the RIAA not behave outrageously towards guilty defendants as for innocents. If a tactic or procedure is not kosher, it's not kosher no matter who's in the box.
That's not being ethical. Even guilty people deserve legal represention.
Don't you look at a client before you take a case to begin with and decide whether they'll be able to pay you? It should have been obvious that Ms. Thomas could not pay $130k in legal fees, why would the lawyer agree to take her as a client if he knew that's what his fees would end up running?
exactly, the ethics of lawyering is to argue the best possible legal case for your client no matter what side they're on. The law changes relatively slowly, and the other side has access to all the same rules they need to be following.
After all, is the DA going to petition the court for "fair" sentencing or are they going to demand "throwing the book" even for a minor offense? Lots of poor kids sit in jail for years (and get convicted of inflated, harsher crimes) for something a good lawyer makes "probation" for somebody with even a little bit of money.
Individuals defending against lawsuits from corporations should be given public defenders. The only reason that right isn't in the Constitution is because corporations didn't exist at the time it was written.
It is possible. It also is possible that at some point near the beginning of this whole mess, he felt differently about things. Maybe he thought cases like this could end up profitable should he win, and file a civil suit in retaliation.
You really never can tell what a lawyer is thinking. Regardless - even if it was something that was a boon against his character or moral compass.. He would never admit it. A lawyer's future rests on his credibility and trust.
Only if an objection to that effect is made...or the judge is gracious enough to blow the whistle on it.
If she fails to object on those grounds:
1. The evidence gets to come in
2. She cannot even appeal based on that, because by failing to object she waived her rights.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it works out.
Usually I just report facts. Occasionally I put in an opinion, clearly identifiable as such. The Slashdot editors would take it out, or reject the story altogether, if they found it inappropriate. If you find it inappropriate, sorry.
You must be new here!
:P
HAHAHHA.... just joking...
and no, I am not new here.. but I have a shiny new username
--
Sig file Sig File we dont need no stinkin' sig file!
Emmanuel
erefinancing.org
I think it's fairly obvious Jammie Thomas is guilty. That's why the jury voted her down in the first place - and, more importantly, that's why the RIAA chose to push this case to trial (rather than one of the ones they dropped). However, they are also using it to push the "making available" offense and gigantic statuatory damages which I find revolting. (I also point to the hilarious ineptitude of their expert witness..) I would have no problem with a legitimate prosecution of Thomas if it weren't for these factors, and I don't think Beckerman would either.
MediaSentry is an unlicensed investigator. As such, any evidence they gained is inadmissable.
In a civil case?
In this jurisdiction?
The trial judge would seem to disagree.
Please, I am not interested in reading someone's blog here
Slashdot IS a blog. Maybe you should go somewhere else?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Lots of poor kids sit in jail for years (and get convicted of inflated, harsher crimes) for something a good lawyer makes "probation" for somebody with even a little bit of money.
Think of the children...
Bah... If they do the crime, they do the time. "fair" sentencing is a farce.
Sure, lets let the criminals back into society where they can rape, pillage, and murder again. ~
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Nope - not guilty. Perhaps liable.
You do know the difference between criminal and civil law, don't you?
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
Because all file-sharers are rapists and murderers.
Well, I certainly appreciate Cliffski's support, but he's not me (HJ). I'm me.
Yes, Ray did respond to my question -- but part of his response exhibits precisely the disingenuous splitting-hairs kind of reasoning that gives lawyers a bad name* and was the motivation for my original question. It may very well be literally true that he has not expressed any opinion about the underlying case. But I have a very hard time believing he is truly "not familiar with the facts of this particular case," given how many comments he has made on his blog and in various Slashdot forums on the subject. Perhaps not familiar in the sense of "sat in the courtroom and took notes," but in the ordinarily understood sense of the word? Give me a break.
I have not seen a single instance in which Ray or Ty Rogers ever admitted that a single argument raised by the plaintiffs in this case had any merit whatsoever. As an experienced, knowledgeable legal professional who has no direct attachment to this case, I find it incredibly hard to believe that such a completely unilateral view would be objectively justified.
Whether or not Ray (or anyone else) thinks I'm a troll is something I can't do much about. As I said, I can't stand the plaintiffs' tactics in this case, or in any of the dozens of others I've read about. (And I've submitted something to the Librarian of Congress every time the DMCA review / comment period has comes up, arguing exactly along those lines.) I'm on the same side as (almost) everyone else here. But I get a bit riled up when someone claims to have a dispassionate, objective view of something, when that view ends up being so uniformly one-sided. /HJ
* With one exception: when it's your lawyer, arguing against the other guys' lawyer(s) in court. In that case, both sides act as disingenuous as the law will allow, and justice is supposed to come out of that tension. In theory, anyway.
Why has he continued to represent her up to this point? I understand he tried to withdraw from the case previously and was barred from doing so. But certainly, he could have withdrawn after the first trial. I also don't understand why Ms. Thomas has continued to keep him as her lawyer considering what a totally pathetic job he did the first time around.
I could present two solid arguments as to how someone else could have her IP number and login ID. One of those arguments fits in well with the stated reason for replacing her hard drive. Yet the best her lawyer could do was argue; she didn't have a wireless access point, but if she did someone could have used it without her permission and just coincidentally used the same login ID. That's like saying, "my client didn't have a window open, but if he did the bullet could have come from outside and just coincidentally looked like it was fired from two feet away."
If that's the case, then we're left with an uncomfortable possibility: namely, that his stated reasons for leaving might be legitimate.
Of course I didn't RTFA, wasn't money his stated reason for leaving?
Maybe he has a mortgage. Maybe he took a loan to buy an expensive car. Maybe he has student loans. Maybe he has a nagging wife. Maybe he was stupid to take on a case he couldn't afford to finish. Maybe he's just a rich asshole who wants to get paid whether his client is guilty or innocent.
There's personal ethics and professional ethics. You are agreeing with the lawyer friends personal ethics. However, even guilty parties need representation. I would certainly not call a public defender unethical just because they object to a 15 year sentence for shoplifting a candy bar.
I have a very hard time believing he is truly "not familiar with the facts of this particular case," given how many comments he has made on his blog [blogspot.com] and in various Slashdot forums on the subject
Name one comment I have made anywhere in which I professed familiarity with the facts of the case.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
That depends entirely on his accounting system. If he uses accrual (when he bills, it's considered income and he pays taxes on it) then yes, he's paid taxes on the uncollected sums and he may now deduct it. If he's on cash, then he only pays taxes after he actually receives payment - since he's paid no taxes he gets no deduction.
I run a consulting firm and we're cash. There are reasons to use either method, but you'd have to ask an accountant about it. Oddly enough, if I want to see how my business has run in a particular quarter, I run a report based on accrual - it represents the work we've done. Cash makes more sense from a tax position for me. I don't know if Lawyers are limited to a particular type of bookkeeping - the law generally doesn't trust them (they are the only corporations which must receive a 1099 for any income; it is not required for other corporations).
IANAA(ccountant), so this is likely a gross simplification.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I think she's guilty in a moral sense and not liable in a civil law sense =) Isn't the RIAA trying to push some law to make non-commercial copyright infringement criminal?
Then please feel free to go fsck off. KTHXBYE
If the defendant confesses, all lawyers are required to withdraw (or at least, they are prohibited from lying). If the defendant doesn't confess, no lawyer has the authority to judge him on his own. Their job is to continue working to prove that he may not be guilty, despite the evidence suggesting he is.
Luke-Jr
That one's easy. Civil law is everything that hasn't successfully been criminalized by big business yet.
-- especially the second declaration --
The lawyer says he has put in a lot of potentially effective gratis. He also indicates that he's stretched a little beyond his ability.
Also mentions that there are a number of lawyers ready and able to take over, if they can be given the time to prepare.
Ergo, he's tagging a partner.
Which is why the RIAA wants to object to a continuance.
Read the article, especially the second declaration.
or is this entire thread essentially based on unsubstantiated speculation?
what are we talking about here?
"Yeah, it's pretty scummy of RIAA, but [unsubstantiated speculation]."
The RIAA will say anything they can get away with. The war they are fighting is not just in the court rooms. They are trying to cow the public (us) into the desired behavior in spite of the fact that they haven't a legal leg to stand on.
Why would they object to a continuance if they really think they can win?
As someone else points out, there are many ways of reading between the lines.
When risks hit certain points, you tend to re-consider even a "sure thing". Approximately USD 130,000 could feed my family for three or four years, easily.
If we are going to read between the lines, I'll offer this: He says there are other lawyers ready and willing to take over, if given the time (continuance). I'm guessing he's getting out of the way so a specialist can take over and make good and sure that the client gets her legal fees paid. (That's why she is pursuing the issue, remember.)
Probabilities improve if she gets a lawyer who is a specialist.
this is part of why im donating to EFF frequently anyways. even if my donations are small. im sure there are many like me.
Read radical news here
If the court won't let the lawyer withdraw from the case he has every right to invoice said court and/or the judge for his: past, present and/or future costs/fees - does he not? There can't be any room for 'judicial immunity' when a decision is blatantly unfair, unjust and inequitable - which is tantamount to judicial negligence misconduct. VOILA! MISTRIAL!
If you didn't have a public to sell to, then there would be no point in Copyright at all. For Copyright to extend to the limitless horizon gives nothing to the public.
The law says that copyrights/patents are there to encourage creativity so that the public ("the people") can benefit. When we fail to let the public benefit from this, we bite the very hand that feeds those creative endeavors.
Maybe it is time for a no creative purchases for a day, or a week. What if no one went to a movie, bought a CD or DVD, for just one week. So that those that are suing their customers could see what it is like to have not Public to sell to?
That does not imply an obligation for a specific person to provide them with one. Refusing to be the one to provide it is not depriving them of the right to having some, and is in my mind a much more ethical thing to do than taking up any case regardless of one's own convictions.
hey kiddie. I never post as A/C, unlike you, because I clearly believe in what I have to say.
Grow up kid.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
And yet you are always spamming slashdot with stories about it, presumably in some sad attempt to channel yet more traffic to your ad-infested blog, which is presumably how you make a living. Given the way you debate the issues here, its clear you cant be a real lawyer, so I guess this is how you pay the bills.
Pretty fucking sad.