Comments on: RIAA lawyer / judgeship controversy

By: An arse

An arse — Sun, 11 May 2008 16:13:04 +0000

Sadly, you are incorrect Jimmy B. Gabriel will still be able to hear any cases in Colorado related to the RIAA and file sharing; however, it will be easier to appeal to the Appeals Court in those cases due to the fact that the Appeals Court is responsible for accepting any appeals related to court cases where a judge may have strong biases in.

For the people of Colorado, this is a terrible thing. It means that lawsuits will become twice as expensive as they will have to naturally appeal to the Appeals Court every decision that Richard Gabriel makes. It also means that the state will have probably one of the worst judges in history.

For Richard Gabriel, this is a terrible thing. The Appeals Court could easily consider him to be an extremely biased judge that tries to invent laws rather than applying laws (which Gabriel has done frequently in the past), which could result in many fines and jail time for Richard Gabriel.

For the RIAA, this is a terrible thing. They lost leverage around the world, but only gained leverage in destroying Colorado, which is a state that has very little population and wealth to benefit RIAA much.

For the rest of the world, this is a great thing. After all, what is bad for RIAA is great for everyone else.

By: Jimmy B.

Jimmy B. — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:56:53 +0000

This is a good thing ( I think ). I’m not a lawyer, but I would think that Gabriel will not be able to hear any cases that even remotely relate to the RIAA and file sharing, so this effectively gets him out of the way.

By: rtk

rtk — Sat, 10 May 2008 18:36:08 +0000

Ray: 7. I’m glad for Mr. Gabriel’s family that he may be getting out before the Rule 11 sanctions start coming in.

I’m having trouble processing this. How can he “get out”, is there some immunity or statue of limitations? Just because he’s not their lead council any more, isn’t he guilty of the transgressions of the past?

If ever there was a guy in need of some “corrective” action, it’s RIAA Richard. I’m sure the US legal system has dealt with scum lawyers before, why is there soooo much resistance to stopping it, is the threat of Rule 11 sanctions as toothless as they appear?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:51:40 +0000

Why dont the just all f–k off sort out there buisness models the way i see it if the movie industrys dont like there property ending up on filesharing networks STOP GIVING CINEMAS MONTHS exclusivity and release it to all major players and countrys the same time give people the choice they want i dont wanna sit in a decrepid old cinema to watch a movie and i dont wanna have to wait months from i see it advertised close the window of exclusivity close the need to pilfer from filesdharing networks!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 10 May 2008 16:22:00 +0000

Toder is an RIAA drone this is why Jammie lost her first trial. A total scam this trial!

Fine with us. No Justice no peace.