Stress of any kind can seriously exacerbate her condition and yet Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, the members of the Big Four Organized Music cartel, see fit to pursue her for a fictitious copyright ‘crime’.
The Big Four claim Schwartz is a big-time illicit online distributor of digital music files, although they know perfectly well that’s not true. They’re really after her daughter, who’s no more guilty of the charge than her mother —— or any of the thousands of equally innocent men, women and children around the world who are also being cruelly victimized by the cartel as part of its bizarre sue ‘em all marketing campaign.
But RaeJ is a good place to start, says the cartel, in effect, using its RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) as its mouthpiece.
Schwartz’s lawyer, Ray Beckerman, made the extent of RaeJ’s condition clear to the RIAA. But the so-called ‘trade’ organ has chosen to nonetheless continue its move against her.
This June, ex-Vietnam helicopter pilot Larry Scantlebury died from a brain aneurysm. He too was being hounded by the Big Four.
“Plaintiffs have violated the principles of ethics mandated by the State of Michigan by harassing the Defendant, telephoning him at his home, masquerading as ‘settlement counsellors,’ adopting actual aspects of the law never litigated or resolved by an Apellate Court and expressing these non resolved factors as established guidelines that this court will follow,” declared a court document.
In Recording Industry vs The People, Beckerman answers an RIAA letter opposing Schwartz’s request for, “a premotion conference, or waiver of premotion conference, for her summary judgment motion”.
Here’s Beckerman’s letter to judge David G. Trager:
Dear Judge Trager:
This is in response to the November 1st letter of plaintiffs in opposition to the request of our client, defendant Rae J. Schwartz, for a premotion conference or waiver of premotion conference in connection with her motion for summary judgment motion.
Plaintiffs` opposition is based entirely on Rule 56(f), which as your honor knows, does not exist to enable wishful thinkers to embark on fishing expeditions. Plaintiffs have no evidence of Ms. Schwartz having infringed anyone`s copyrights, or of her having done anything that would subject her to secondary liability under MGM v. Grokster.
In fact, Ms. Schwartz has never engaged in file sharing, has never heard of file sharing until the RIAA started knocking on her door, and has never downloaded music. Her motion papers will set that forth. She is a middle aged woman with Multiple Sclerosis who uses her computer to communicate with people by email.
Although plaintiffs` counsel feel no ethical compulsion against alleging that Ms. Schwartz downloaded and distributed music, they have no evidence that she did so, and the summary judgment motion, searching the record as it will, will lay that bare.
The only evidence they have is that Ms. Schwartz paid for an internet access account.
In Elektra v. Wilke, a similar case in Chicago, where, as here, the only evidence they had against the defendant was that he had paid for an internet access account, the defendant`s summary judgment motion was met with opposition papers which admitted plaintiffs cannot at this time, without an opportunity for full discovery present by affidavit facts essential to justify their opposition to Defendant`s motion and requested discovery under Rule 56(f). Before the summary judgment motion could be heard, they discontinued the case. (Copies annexed).
The statement in plaintiffs` counsel`s penultimate paragraph that Ms. Schwartz knows of someone else`s having infringed plaintiffs` copyrights and has `withheld` such information instead of engaging in productive dialogue to resolve this matter is infuriating, as (a) the statement is false, (b) it is irrelevant to the liability of Ms. Schwartz whether anyone else has or has not infringed plaintiffs` copyrights, (c) it suggests that plaintiffs are a law enforcement agency rather than a cartel of four multinational business corporations, and (d) the statement admits – more effectively than anything the undersigned could possibly say – that plaintiffs are, in cases like this, using the federal judicial system for an improper purpose: for the purpose of conducting an investigation. They bring suits against individuals, knowing that many or most of them are innocent, and then revel and wallow in the pretrial discovery and subpoena powers the pendency of a federal lawsuit bestows upon them, enabling them to conduct the investigation they ought to have conducted – at their own expense – before suing innocent people.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 makes it clear that under our judicial system it is contemplated that the investigation of a defendant`s liability is supposed to take place before, not after, the commencement of a federal lawsuit against her.
Schwartz – RIAA sues wheelchair mother, November 1, 2006
Multiple Sclerosis – RIAA builds new consumer class, November 20, 2006
brain aneurysm – RIAA victim Scantlebury harassed, August 14, 2006
Recording Industry vs The People – Rae J. Schwartz Responds to RIAA Letter Opposing Her Summary Judgment Request, December 21, 2006