RIAA ‘mystery witness’ in Tenenbaum case
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- In their latest attempt to make a mockery out of the US court system, RIAA lawyers are demanding the Joel Tenenbaum vs the RIAA hearing scheduled for June 5 be “accelerated” to next week, and to approve their bid to have a Chicago ‘mystery witness’ interviewed by telephone, the results being officially entered as “new” evidence.
And they want the ‘deposition’ kept secret in much the same way they’ve so far been able to surpress a ruling that oral arguments in the case be televised so the world can see the RIAA in action as it twists and turns and bends the truth.
At the beginning of the year, judge Nancy Gertner approved a motion to allow oral arguments in the hearing to be streamed live online.
The RIAA, which claims the court cases are to openly educate people on the evils of file sharing, nonetheless managed to have the decision overturned so no one except the lawyers will see and hear what’s going on.
Now, for their ‘mystery’ witness in Sony BMG Music Entertainment v Tenenbaum, “Flying to Chicago to conduct the deposition is an unnecessary expense,” say the labels in a court document.
And, “plaintiffs filed a ‘supplemental memorandum’ in connection with a motion they made approximately 6 months ago, on the ground that they it contained “new evidence” they obtained 8 months ago,” says Ray Beckerman in Recording Industry vs The People, going on »»»
Time, once again, to remind the law students and fledgling lawyers out there not to practice law this way :
a) it is not recommended practice to tell a judge that she should accelerate the hearing date she set for decision of a number of motions based on voluminous paperwork,
b) there is no basis in the law for making a motion to compel a deposition without revealing the identify of the witness, the subject matter, etc,
c) it is inappropriate to attempt to submit as “new evidence” in support of a motion evidence which was in your possession two months prior to your making the motion, and (
d) it is inappropriate to submit any “evidence” by a memorandum of law.
Again I just want to remind you that this case is being litigated in a strange way by both sides, and there is nothing going on that should be emulated.
It looks like both sides’ attorneys are trying their hardest not to win, but to lose, the case.
Just disregard everything you see. I’m tempted to stop coverage of this case, because … well because I can’t bear to watch. I’m going to start taking a poll on that …
However, on Ray’s suggestion that law students and fledgling lawyers shouldn’t practice law this way, why shouldn’t they?
After all, the RIAA has for years been getting away with judicial murder while its opponents try to plead their cases fairly, just as though the playing fields are level the objective is to serve justice.
Stay tuned.
Recording Industry vs The People – RIAA asks court to accelerate June 5th hearing to next week, to rule that Chicago deposition can be taken by telephone, & to consider ‘new’ evidence, April 30, 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.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:52 am
Secret evidence/witness .. maybe its just my TV based knowledge of the US justice system .. but what about ‘discovery’ (procecusion must share evidence with defence). Though the same TV based knowlege trials always has suprise witnesses
… Objection your honour .. unfair surprise!
May 1st, 2009 at 11:17 am
in canada they have to name witnesses at the discovery phase , YOU cant say you had a witness and produce them later.
USA law seems wacked no matter what so don’t know
May 1st, 2009 at 11:43 am
I’m all for fairness. It should always be the default method/action. But if your opponent refuses to play fair, then they’ve simply opened up a new option for you. To keep things ‘fair’, you should begin to play the game the same way. Just make sure you can beat them at their own game*. Usually, this is easy to do. Since by refusing to play fairly and ‘cheating’, the opposition admits their lack of confidence to challenge and beat you by the rules. This should be seen for what it is, a weakness, either in their ability or their strategy. As such, they are simply acknowledging that they are already floundering. Thus, one should simply press home their inherent advantage, with a (now) wider array of means at their disposal.
*Of course, in a competition decided by a third party (judge/referee/umpire/etc) who has intentionally sided with your opponent, then unfortunately none of the above will work, since you are no longer playing or competing, but merely following a script.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:40 pm
” However, on Rayâs suggestion that law students and fledgling lawyers shouldnât practice law this way, why shouldnât they? ”
Precisely.
It obviously works.
There are clearly no consequences for it.