p2pnet news | RIAA News:- The case of Brittany Chan was one of the first to suggest Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA had an agenda which, boiled down, meant:

a) First, attack the parents, make their life hell; and,
b) Then go after the real targets —- the kids.

Candy Chan, “the mother who had been improperly sued by the RIAA in Michigan four years ago, in Priority v. Chan, and whose 15 year old daughter was subsequently sued for alleged acts of copyright infringement committed while she would have been 13 years old,” brought an action in state court in Michigan last year against Priority Records, “and several of its cohorts for abuse of process and RICO violations,” says Recording Industry vs The People.

The RICO Act has raised its head several times in RIAA cases.

Short for Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, it’s more usually brought against criminals and criminal gangs such as the MAFIA, which is also why some lawyers have thought it also appropriate for the RIAA.

“Having already failed once to nail Brittany Chan through her mother, Candy, the Big Music cartel is now going after Britanny again, this time by herself,” p2pnet posted in 2005.

Now, three years on, “The action was removed to federal court, assigned to the same judge who had presided over the initial action, and dismissed in June on the ground that the allegations were ‘compulsory counterclaims’ that were required to have been interposed in the initial action,” says says RIvTP.

What, exactly, does that mean?

p2pnet asked John Hermann, who’s been representing the Chans since the beginning.

He explained >>>

The case was filed last September in Wayne County Circuit Court. The complaint included a count for Abuse of Process and RICO with extortion as one of the enumerated predicate acts.

Mrs. Chan was the Plaintiff and alleged that Priority Records and the local law firm representing the record companies utilized techniques to threaten and/or extort money from her.

In addition, Mrs Chan alleged the record companies utilized the process of the court system for purposes other than to redress their claims of copyright infringement.

Specifically, she alleged even after she’d been dismissed as a defendant (with prejudice - meaning they could not bring any claims against her for copyright infringement) they continued to threaten her daughter with protracted litigation unless she paid them the $4,000.00 settlement amount.

The attorneys for the record company [Holme Roberts & Owen] removed the case to federal court where it was re-assigned to a different judge.

I, in turn, moved to have the case transferred to the Judge presiding over the original Chan cases (ie, Candy Chan and Brittany Chan).

Legally, the individual has to establish the entire purpose for the suit was a “sham” and that there was no objective basis for bringing the original claim against Mrs Chan.

In addition, the record companies lawyer argued the claims in her complaint were “intertwined” with the original lawsuit and therefore should have been pled as a compulsory counterclaim (ie, response to the original lawsuit).

In my briefs, I argued the abuse of process and/or extortion occurred after the dismissal of Mrs Chan’s suit, citing the continued threats to sue Mrs Chan’s daughter after Mrs Chan had been dismissed as a defendant.

In Michigan, threatening one’s family members with injury to person or property constitutes an act of criminal extortion. MCL 750.213 defines malicious threat to extort money provides:

Any person who shall, either orally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threaten to accuse another of any crime or offense, or shall orally or by any written or printed communication maliciously threaten any injury to the person or property or mother, father, husband, wife or child of another with intent to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened to do or refrain from doing any act against his will, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 20 years or by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 dollars.

Unfortunately, there’s no civil cause of action for criminal extortion.

In other words, only a prosecuting attorney or state attorney can pursue a claim of criminal extortion.

In addition to the abuse of process claim, Mrs Chan also sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) which allows a civil cause of action for certain criminal offenses including extortion.

Last week, the court issued its opinion and order dismissing Mrs Chan’s claims.

The decision didn’t address whether or not the record companies actions amounted to an abuse of process or extortion, but was a dismissal on procedural ground, meaning that the claims should have been raised in response to the initial lawsuit.

Hermann isn’t planning to appeal the ruling so sadly, that’s it.

. .Stumble It!

Recording Industry vs The People - RICO and Abuse of Process Case, Chan v. Priority, commenced in Michigan last year, now dismissed, July 5, 2008
p2pnet - Big Music wants Britanny Chan, October 5, 2005

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!

Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.

This entry was posted on Monday, July 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm and is filed under RIAA News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 4065 times