RIAA admits case has ‘factual inaccuracies’
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- The other day I reported on my blog that the record companies had assigned, to the RIAA itself, a $4,000 default judgment they’d gotten against a lady in Massachusetts, and that the RIAA was going after the defendant with an ‘enforcement’ proceeding to squeeze the money out of her.
It turns out, the RIAA withdrew its motion because, according to the RIAA’s collection lawyer, the motion ‘contained factual inaccuracies … which plaintiff needs to sort out’ (PDF).
A few little ‘factual inaccuracies’ never bothered an RIAA lawyer before.
The attorney, Simon Mann, must be new around here.
He won’t have the RIAA as a client for long if he’s going to be finicky about getting his facts right. He wouldn’t fit in with Matthew Oppenheim and the Holme Roberts & Owen crowd.
By the way, here’s a pointer for you law students out there: you’re supposed to “sort out” the facts before, not after, you sue somebody.
But you might not have picked that up if you’ve been following the RIAA cases.
February , 2009
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.
February 7th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Ya like oh we have no proof atm but we’ll get some invented and be right back….
February 7th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
The RIAA can never get their facts right. I’m happy they are making themselves look like idiots.
February 8th, 2009 at 10:58 am
While the RIAA is wrong for having sued and collected from so many innocent personâs, my gripe is with the justice system for permitting innocent people to be made to turn money over the the RIAA and Directv. Justice should never support the suing of innocent people nor should they ever assist the collection from innocent people. Because justice is on the side of such fraudulent suits, I can no longer support justice till they come back to the side of law and order. What will I do? The next time I am a Juror, I will do what justice has done. That is ignore justice and cast my juror vote disregarding justice. The next time I am a witness to an event, I will ignore justice. If justice decided to not protect innocent people being sued, then justice has to learn the lesson.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Makes sense Gene. Instead of actually doing something productive to fix a broken system, let’s just break it even more.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
” Makes sense Gene. Instead of actually doing something productive to fix a broken system, letâs just break it even more.”
Make a suggestion instead of just slag someone else.
Actually, Jury Nullification is part of the system for a reason.
It’s a means to eliminate bad laws when the people in power
who make them won’t listen. It’s an integral part of the system
called ‘Checks and Balances’.
Gene makes perfect sense, and I also will NEVER convict someone
if I happen to be put on a Jury for this, as well as a few ‘other’things’
February 8th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Ya see Reaser’s Write , he has had an experiience and what have you had , i will say did you read the lil red text that says DONT attack , flame,troll?
As to the jury none of you two above would get there as part of the proces sthey get to ask questions if your impartial you get ther eor as close to it.
The problem here is over time they wonr be able to get that cause htey have literally sued everyone. That measn in time YES you could end up with a jury thats already to NOT convict thus nullifying the law and forcing appeals that would hten resend it back to court a second time which is the same hting happened you get the person walk free.
Ya know the process could be made cheaper by simply not allowing them to sue people AND OR show a judge they have 100% proof and this judge would be very tech savvy. Not sme 80 year old form the ww2 days.
I am prety sure that most of us can see what levels of proof they have and most times they dont have it and thats why befor eyou seue someone should have a look , before any BS starrts. AND yes that should cost you a few bucks to pay for hte this TYPE a judge.
February 8th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
” As to the jury none of you two above would get there as part of the proces sthey get to ask questions if your impartial you get ther eor as close to it. ”
Unfortunately too true.
Also, in some areas if a juror even mentions nullification a Judge will threaten him with
fines or time ( improperly, of course ). Judges will also LIE and say that jury nullification
is illegal and actionable ( i’ts not ).
But, when questioned, I obviously can’t lie about facts, but I CAN adjust my ‘OPINION’
in order to get on a jury .. who can prove I didn’t simply change my mind ?
Also, If a majority of folks are MADE AWARE of jury nullification, it will become very
difficult indeed to get a jury together that’s ignorant of the process, and the reasons
for it.
I tell everyone I can, and describe how it can rightfully be used.
You should too.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
What /is/ good is that more pressure is coming for these kinds of trials to be made more public – I know the PirateBay guys are also pushing for their upcoming court dates to be well-publicized/televised as well. Knowing how media-savvy those guys are, that could be the best thing on TV for years to come.
It is telling that the RIAA hire farms of middlemen robo-lawsuit outfits that stay hidden to fight their proxy war on citizens. The lawyers and firms sending these things off don’t want to be brought into the light of day …
February 9th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Needed: Some JAIL TIME for RIAA liars.
Sure, RIAA never get their sales facts rights, especially when they, the member record companies, have to pay royalties to artists and songwriters, a simple accounting procedure. The RIAA can never get their facts right. Then the intermediates, such as agents and music publishers further grind the facts so that artists and songwriters get nothing.
Then don’t expect them to get their facts rights when writing to the courts, which by the way never consider a lie by a lawyer as the perjury it is. Yes, PERJURY by lawyers are “mistakes”, by all else, it is JAIL TIME.